Thermosphere Contraction Puzzles Scientists 200
The thermosphere layer of earth's atmosphere begins 80 to 90 kilometers above the surface and extends several hundred kilometers into the sky; it is the home to numerous satellites and the International Space Station. It is known that the thermosphere occasionally cools and contracts, but a recent study of satellite orbital decay (due to light atmospheric drag) found that the contraction during 2008 and 2009 was significantly more severe than expected, leaving researchers at a loss for how to explain it. From Space.com:
"This type of collapse is not rare, but its magnitude shocked scientists. 'This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,' said John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. 'It's a Space Age record.' The collapse occurred during a period of relative solar inactivity — called a solar minimum from 2008 to 2009. These minimums are known to cool and contract the thermosphere, however, the recent collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain."
No good can come from this discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
The first 4 comments show as much.
Everybody run for your lives! (Score:5, Funny)
Some One Liners (Score:2, Funny)
"Don't worry, it's cool."
"Don't worry, I suffer from a bit of shrinkage, too."
I'm confused. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, it's reported this is not rare. On the other hand, we've got plenty of sensationalistic language: "significantly more severe", "researchers at a loss", "collapse", "its magnitude shocked scientists".
So, is it the usual news cycle hype reporting on a puzzling phenomenon, or is there a reason to be alarmed?
Re: (Score:2)
First rule: If you can’t change it, and can’t protect yourself from it, there is no point in being alarmed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can tell, that happens mainly to old people who spend their retirement time watching TV.
Saramago (our laureate writer) said he was afraid of dying not because of death itself, but for all the projects he was still committed to and would leave unfinished.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats called rationalizing. Old people if they had the option to die or swap into a young cadaver and live healthily for another 50years would take it. And they would not like the idea of death all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh well, I'll just move on, nothing to see here...
WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
actually it's (Score:5, Funny)
Actually I just made that up, but it sounded good, didn't it? Right? I'm sure we can blame it on pollution somehow.
Re:actually it's (Score:5, Funny)
Evil. Very evil.
You have a lucrative future ahead of you in climatology.
Re:actually it's (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it's likely related to global warming, since CO2 emits light at a different wavelength than it absorbs it, it sometimes causes the thermosphere (and other layers) to cool and contract by the time the light gets to the outer layers. There are climate models that predict this.
The problem with that is the CO2 levels have been gradually rising over the years - the 2008-2009 cycle did not have significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere than did previous cycles, yet there is a massive difference thermosphere compression.
If CO2 were the cause you would still expect to see a gradual increase in thermosphere compression year to year - the current 16 year cycle would simply have a higher rate of compression on average than the previous solar cycles.
That's not what was observed. What was observed was a massive compression in a single year - far greater than the previously useful solar models predicted. CO2 can definitely be part of the cause, but it cannot explain the huge difference between 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. They should only differ by the difference in solar activity, as CO2 levels are essentially the same.
Re: (Score:2)
... because all natural systems respond in a strictly linear fashion?
umm, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course CO2 can explain it. The sudden anomaly is simply caused by positive water feedback reflected of the methane produced by cow farts causing an upward wind.
This is known as "the Cow-Tipping Point".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you sure earned your paycheck today. I guess astroturfing pays well if you don't have a problem with lying, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no.
I know you were trying to be tongue-in-cheek but increased CO2 levels are not going to have much effect on the thermosphere to the level that they're seeing. Sure, a higher greenhouse content in the troposphere will have some impact due to successive cooling of the higher atmospheric layers, but there is hardly any atmosphere at those levels anyway. In addition, the change they saw was year over while global warming takes place over decades.
Unless the warming caused some sort of critical level
ARRL skip thought (Score:2, Interesting)
Coincidence? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm... how about the most powerful ionospheric heater in the world? It also differs in operation from all other ionospheric heaters that diffuse ELF waves into the atmosphere. HAARP can focus the signal from acres of towers into one spot in the atmosphere, which is quite different.
Meaning that it only affects the ionosphere where atmospheric particles are much closer together than in the thermosphere.
The ionosphere is part of the thermosphere... We are la
Get to the hospital (Score:5, Funny)
when the contractions are 5 minutes apart
Only remotely related to global warming. (Score:4, Informative)
The temperature of the thermosphere has nothing to do with the temperature of the climate. We're talking about the part of the atmosphere where the international space station orbits. The rules there are very different from the lower atmosphere (as are the temperatures (up to a few thousand C depending upon where you are). The temperatures are controlled by the absorption and emission of radiation (and, of course, conservation of energy).
The radiation absorbed by these tenuous gasses is in the extreme ultraviolet and soft x-ray. We've been monitoring the solar EUV and SXR output for quite a while. When they are high the thermosphere heats up and expands. Satellites in low orbit experience a lot of drag and end up in lower orbits. Because of the extended solar minimum EUV and SXR are way down, but they haven't changed enough to explain the entire temperature difference. So the remainder of the difference has to be in the emission of radiation in the thermosphere. There's a series of linked partial differential equations involved, so I won't do the actual math. But the easiest way to cool the thermosphere is to add higher amounts of species that have a lot of cooling transitions.
One of the people quoted in TFA thinks it might be due to increased CO2. I have a hard time buying that. Because it's heavy, it's hard to get CO2 into the thermosphere. It would be tough to get an in situ measurement of CO2 and it's ionization products with any existing instrument
As far as what this effect could do to the world. Well, it could screw up your AM reception. And it could screw up a prediction of a LEO satellite's orbit. (i.e. your sun synchronous polar orbit might not be as sun synchronous as you hoped.) But it's not going to kill dolphins or sea turtles, or cause earthquakes or polar shifts.
I could do the required measurement with an FUV to NUV spectrometer for diffuse radiation on 2-axis coarse pointing gimbal. I'd need a satellite for a platform. But by the time I got it built and launched we'd be heading up toward solar max.
Disclaimer, I do this for a living.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the quote was referring to CO2 in the lower atmosphere trapping thermal energy there and keeping it from reaching the upper atmosphere. This effect cools the upper atmosphere and the thermosphere, causing contraction.
Reason for contraction found (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Think of insulation. Insulation can keep heat in, and it can also keep heat out. Insulation will keep your house warm in the winter, and also cool in the summer. It's not that hard to understand, is it?
Although CO2 may be causing cooling high in the troposphere, it's keeping the surface of the Earth warm. So far, 2010 is the warmest year on record [usatoday.com], with Arctic [nsidc.org] and Antarctic [nasa.gov] ice continuing to melt, despite low solar activity.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course ice melts in the summer. It also freezes in the winter. Thank you, Captain Obvious!
What I was referring to by the Arctic and Antarctic ice melting was that they are melting away over the period of years and decades because the Earth is warming over the period of years and decades. If you would have read the links I posted, you would see that's what I was referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Are we talking about the same Artic ice [uaf.edu] here. It's quite understandable that ice melts at summer. There's anything special about this year.
Meanwhile in Antarctic [nsidc.org]. At the end of June, Southern Hemisphere mid-winter, the sea ice surrounding Antarctica was more than two standard deviations greater than normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Antarctic ice sheet isn't really melting, but the glaciers are moving at an increased speed, carrying more ice towards the edges (where it is melting).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm not panicking even though polar bears are dying here in Finland [wordpress.com] ;)
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like how CO2 always does the bad things.
Now that we know it makes the summers hotter and the winters cooler, we should double carbon taxes. It's only fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, hang on a minute. Please actually pretend that you read *all* of the link you submitted. At least be slightly even-handed, as the article seemed to be, because about 1/2 of your very article (past the title) directly contradicted you.
The 2010 is the warmest year on record [usatoday.com] link you sent *also* said this:
Re: (Score:2)
He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.
That's because they measure completely different things. Satellites measure the lower troposphere, while NOAA uses ground based meteorological stations.
Especially in short time frames, the difference can be quite big. Over longer times, the average trend is similar, although some discrepancies have been observed too. See this page for a discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements [wikipedia.org]
He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.
Funny how the NOAA anomaly map for 2010 shows hardly any warming in urban areas, and plenty of w
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
doors, do they let people in, or do they let people out? Which is it?
windows, do they let light in, or do they let light out? We can't win!
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:4, Funny)
So you're saying we've been phrasing the question wrong.
Why doesn't the food know? Because we've tricked it!
Same reason wooden boats float. Until you load them up enough that the water can see over the edge and notice all the non-floating things you have in there, it pushes back. Once it's seen that though, it will vengefully rush in and sink the boat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obamao (Score:2)
I find putting "Mao eyes" is more appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Always the bad one of course.
That's why we need that draconian tax, don't you understand?
And I see you were just exhaling that stuff.
Remain calm and stay put. Carbon police is already underway.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we really sure about CO2? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/observations/significant/2010/environment/ [vrx.net]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You realize that the possible effects of CO2 on the thermosphere, and the effects of CO2 on global climate are two completely different discussions ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't "Surface of earth gets hotter, earth spins slower" also work?
or "Suface of earth gets hotter, sun gets cooler", or "Surface of earth gets hotter, universe gets cooler"
Ah the fun of thermo and where you define your system...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? Tell that to this lump of uranium.
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever manage to find a material or process that can repeatably induce a temperature gradient in whatever when there was none before without needing external energy input, make sure to patent it hard and fast.
Repeal the law of thermodynamics!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Earth isn't a closed system.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but there's a rather big flaming ball of hydrogen in the sky.
That should have been explained in high school as well.
Re: (Score:2)
First we need to understand that entropy is energy,
energy that can't be used to state it more specifically.
In a closed system entropy always goes up,
that's the second law, now you know what's up.
You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate.
Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount.
Re:Not temperature - density (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not temperature - density (Score:5, Informative)
CO2 is denser than air so naturally the atmosphere compacts under gravity as the density increases.
Utterly incorrect. CO2 levels rising dramatically doesn't mean the percentage composition of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed by a large number. The atmosphere is still less than .5% CO2 today; even if it had started at 0% CO2, adding .5% concentration of something only half again as heavy (or dense, if you prefer; not that dense and heavy are synonyms but either way my point stands) as the vast majority of the atmosphere would not logically explain "the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years" without some serious synergy compounding the effect of that minimal impact on atmospheric density.
Furthermore, a given swath of the atmosphere is all roughly the same density; it's not like there's this big fat pocket of air that weighs 0.1 g/L and this other pocket a mile away at the same altitude that weighs 0.19 g/L. Diffusion dictates that CO2 could change the density of the air only as much as it changes the average density of the entire atmosphere (at a given altitude) once completely diffused into all the other stuff. You could jack the atmosphere up to 10% CO2, 20 times what it's ever been in the last billion years, and I doubt you could explain these contractions with simply density arguments.
Also, TFA mentions CO2 - not in any conjunction whatsoever with your insane reason for mentioning it, but it does mention CO2 - and says "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." Note that they're talking about CO2 cooling the upper atmosphere, not about density.
Whoever marked the parent as informative is a moron.
Definitely, and there's at least 4 of them apparently. 4 people who felt compelled to tell us this was good information but couldn't remember anything about 101 level chemistry. How the fuck did they pretend to know it was good information if they can't see through something that stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I have made a simple math error, but from looking at data from the IPCC, the actual percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 0.0038 (380 parts per million).
For some perspective on its effects, consider that it has risen from about 280ppm, a massive jump of 0.001%. Over the past decade, global temperature has been running about 0.5 degrees above average, or around 3.3% higher. The two decades (80-00) before that was about 0.15 degrees above average. The three decades (50-80) before that
Re:Not temperature - density (Score:4, Interesting)
Going from 280 to 380 ppm is a relative increase of 35%. That's certainly a significant increase. Don't get distracted by the relatively small overall concentration in the atmosphere. This is completely irrelevant. What matters is the total mass of CO2 the light passes through from the sun to the earth's surface. This total mass has been increased by 35%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The attenuations follows a log curve. Best current estimates are for increase of about 3 degrees C in global temperature for every doubling of CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that the existing greenhouse effect is already 33 degrees C, of which about 1/3rd is due to CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's correct.
"I don't see much of a correlation there. The temperature increase is simply far too high."
Instead of guessing, how about doing the math using Fourier's well established 1824 equation that he derived while he was inventing spectral analysis...
RF=5.35ln(380/280) = 1.6 Watts/M^2.
This translates to an equi
Re: (Score:2)
Reelin' in the little fishies ...
Are you now? So you're not an idiot, you're just a troll or a joker? And that's supposed to make me more impressed with you?
In any case, when I wrote my response, your comment had briefly peaked at +5 informative; I had to save people from believing such idiocy whether or not I thought you believed your own bullshit.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I understand: They migrated the thermosphere control servers to Linux. However the thermosphere control device is on USB, and there are no appropriate drivers. Those drivers are missing because of the flaws in GPL. This wouldn't have been a problem if the device would not have entered a special high temperature mode, because the standard low temperature mode is well supported by Linux drivers. This high temperature mode was of course entered because of global warming. Moreover, a backup server still running
Boom-shaka-laka-laka! (Score:2)
It's the sound a slam dunk makes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just... go fuck a goat, you pessimistic bastard. What we don't need is people who are going to sit around and bitch about how we're all inevitably doomed. Those people (and you specifically) aren't a part of any solution, so yes - go fuck a goat.
(pulls up a chair, dons a colander for a hat, straps on the old high school football shoulder pads and starts fretting)
How on earth am I supposed to fuck a goat when I'm so worried about the inevitable demise of this giant merry-go-round that I'm wearing a coffee pot for a cup?
I'm impressed. (Score:2)
Okay, either that's one seriously underutilized coffee pot, or you're the greatest man on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
On a more optomistic note, if people keep ignoring environmental problems there will be plenty of goats [flickr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We had 8 months of winter in Europe, with record snow down to Spain and temperatures lower than they were in the last 30 years. Were constantly reminded that it was a seasonal event, weather, that had nothing to do with climate.
After a mere 3 weeks of summer, with record hot temperatures, the media is already reviving the global warming mantra.
I was modded into oblivion when I half-jokingly asserted that record lows are weather and record highs are climate change, but now we see exactly that.
8 mo. of the ha
Re:Very easy to explain.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Europe may have had a cold winter, but globally the period Dec 2009-Feb 2010 was warmer than average. Similarly, the spring/early summer period was also warmer than average.
As far as the temperature on any given point on the globe, it's a combination of weather and climate. Global warming has pushed the averages up a little, but daily weather will always be the major factor in the temperature swings.
Banking analogy (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly, global warming does cause colder winters. The cause of those colder winters is the melting of the ice caps.
More heat in the atmosphere means more energy, which causes stronger winds and quicker circulation. Cold air from the north pole travel faster to Europe and therefore has less time to warm in the way.
Those colder winters are more than balanced by hotter summers, we are spending away our ice reserves. It's like when you spend more than you earn. Your having more money to spend does not mean you're getting richer.
Re:Banking analogy (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the Antarctic ice cap is losing volume, even though it is gaining surface area. The Arctic ice cap is losing both volume and area. Greenland ice is also losing volume.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the Antarctic ice cap is losing volume, even though it is gaining surface area.
Soon it will be a Menger sponge [wikipedia.org].
BZZZT, Wrong!!! (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder by which definition you say the Arctic ice cap is in "decline", but not melting?
The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking, not growing. It's losing volume [edf.org], which is the only significant definition of size when one considers climate issues. It's losing volume the only way a polar ice cap can lose volume, by melting. But, of course, you'll never know this if you have only one news source [foxnews.com].
Warmer oceans cause increased water evaporation, which then precipitates as snow or rain. Considering that a large part of Antarctica is still well below freezing point, it's only natural that *some* regions of Antarctica have had more snowfall caused by global warming. Yes, global warming does cause both more snowfall and colder winters. Which is more than offset by hotter summers and increased ice melting.
Re: (Score:2)
The angle of incidence on the poles is so low that the contribution to albedo from polar caps is much smaller than their overall area would otherwise suggest.
Re:Very easy to explain.. (Score:5, Informative)
No, we had not. When you say something like that I wonder if you're living in Europe at all - or maybe you're counting on your readers to not be in Europe?
Winter in Europe, December to February, were below the average for the period 1951-1980 (the standard reference period). But already in spring, March to May, it was back above it.
Another issue: the amount of snowfall depends primarily on water vapor in the atmosphere. As long as there's freezing temperatures, more moisture means more snow. More cold below zero degrees celsius does not cause more snow. A very basic prediction of climate modeling is that water vapor in the atmosphere will increase as temperature increases. So record cold might be unexpected from a climate science perspective; record snowfall would not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Very easy to explain.. (Score:4, Informative)
8 mo. of the harshest winter for 30 years = press says "weather". 4 we. of the hottest summer for 30 years = press says "global warming, doom, hellfire".
I have no problem with either explanation, but it sure should be consistent.
Your consistentcy problems are caused by looking to the press for an explaination rather than climate [realclimate.org] scientists [nature.com]. Climate is the long term statistics of weather and due to the signal to noise ratio it takes a couple of decades worth of data to observe a trend with high confidence. If you really do want a detailed and robust scientific explaination of what is causing the observed trend, then read the IPCC's WG1 report. Be warned the WG1 is heavy going but with the amount of layman-freindly explainations and commentry available directly from scientists and scientific institutions there really is no reason to allow the press to keep you ignorant and confused about the basics. If you don't know where to look then start with WP, it will give you a good run down of the science [wikipedia.org] and the anti-science [wikipedia.org]. If it's too much of a bother to read beyond the MSM then IMHO you should extend that apathy toward posting on the subject.
Re:Very easy to explain.. (Score:5, Insightful)
We had 8 months of winter in Europe, with record snow down to Spain and temperatures lower than they were in the last 30 years. Were constantly reminded that it was a seasonal event, weather, that had nothing to do with climate.
After a mere 3 weeks of summer, with record hot temperatures, the media is already reviving the global warming mantra.
Here in the US, the conservative pundits declared global warming a hoax this past winter when we had record snowfalls. Now we're having record heat this summer and the conservative pundits haven't said a word. Media stupidity about global climate change goes both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just wondering exactly his notion of "the good life" is, and what regulations he's referring to.
And just in case you hadn't noticed, various types of pollution have an effect on climate, both local and ultimately global.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But we've never survived such a period of severely healthy satellite environment before. How can you be so flippantly optimistic?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Our production of water vapour isn't all that big an issue. There's a given amount of water vapour that can exist in the air, which depends on local pressure and temperature. If for some reason there's too much around, it rains or forms dew. If there's too little around, water on the ground evaporates until equilibrium. There's already a huge amount of water ava