Earth atmosphere collapse puzzles scientists

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
It seems our thermosphere has been contracting OVERALL for the past few decades. Scientists have been consistent in linking CO2 with a cooling effect in the UPPER atmosphere (where it is FAR closer to the vacuum of space and FAR less insulated by thicker atmosphere and Earth's surface). Though according to the recent NASA article, CO2 can only explain 10%+ of the recent drop so far. It'll be interesting to hear their findings as they come out. Hopefully it doesn't signify a climate tipping point as a quote from the GRL papers speculates...


"The density anomalies," they wrote, "may signify that an as-yet-unidentified climatological tipping point involving energy balance and chemistry feedbacks has been reached."
Source



Here are a few PRE-2010 articles on thermospheric contraction:



British Antarctic Survey/Washington Post - 1998

British scientists reported yesterday that the Earth's upper atmosphere contracted or dropped by nearly five miles in the past four decades -- a decline they suggest is linked to "greenhouse gas" pollution on land.


Naval Research Laboratory/Innovations-Report.com - 2004

The highest layers of the Earth’s atmosphere are cooling and contracting, most likely in response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases, according to a new study by scientists at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). This contraction could result in longer orbital lifetimes for both satellites and hazardous space debris.


Institute of Atmospheric Physicists/Physics World - 2006

Carbon dioxide released through the burning of fossil fuels is cooling the upper atmosphere, says a group of physicists who believe that a coherent pattern of global climate change in Earth's upper atmosphere is emerging after more than 15 years of study and debate. Falling temperatures are also lowering the density of the upper atmosphere and causing it to contract towards Earth. This is good news for low-Earth-orbit satellites like the International Space Station, which are remaining in their orbits for longer because of reduced atmospheric drag


American Geophysical Union/Space.com - 2008

Earth's atmosphere was known to "breathe" in a cycle lasting nearly a month. Now scientists say the planet takes a quick breath every few days.




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rasalhague
 



Probably not, since it's completelly different mechanisms behind the Van Allen belt and the thermosphere.


We keep trying to separate things based upon transient perspective categories that we think allows us to state that things are not connected.

I assure you, if the Van Allen belts were Charge Neutralized... the Atmosphere WOULD be effected.

The Van Allen Belt is a Natural cavity effect around the earth.

when solar wind (hydrogen) intersects the magnetosphere of earth, the electrons are ripped off the atom and collect in the outer Van Allen belt, while the proton spirals inward due to its density.

This is what causes the local charge imbalance that produces Lightning.


"Van Allen Belt's being Grounded to the Earth recently... (Repeatedly)" Where did you read that?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

-Edrick

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Oh, This is Great...

NASA is NOW saying that it is because of "Carbon Dioxide"


I swear, they will never *STOP* trying to tax the air we breathe, will they?

science.nasa.gov...

It's all a shell game people...

They've been depleting the Van Allen Belts with their Weather and Earthquake gizmo's... of COURSE they will blame it on Carbon Dioxide.


The Thermosphere COOLED and CONTRACTED because of the loss of the insulating thickness and density of the Van Allen belts.

-Edrick



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 

No.

The particles carried by the solar wind are already in a ionized state when they encounter the magnetosphere. If they were not, if they carried no charge, they would not be affected by the magnetosphere. It is mostly electrons which are guided toward the poles by the magnetic field and produce the aurora when they encounter other atoms in the upper atmosphere.

The outer Van Allen belt is composed mostly of electrons captured from the solar wind so it is negatively charged. The inner belt is composed of protons created by the the decay of neutrons from cosmic rays and so is positively charged. It is less common, but at times the protons can also produce aurora.

Lightning is caused by the build up of static charges within clouds in the atmosphere. It is not a discharge of the Van Allen belts.

And no. NASA is not saying the density reduction of the thermosphere is caused by CO2. They are saying it is not.

According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.



[edit on 7/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



No.


Yes.


The particles carried by the solar wind are already in a ionized state when they encounter the magnetosphere.


Duh.


If they were not, if they carried no charge, they would not be affected by the magnetosphere.


Yes, Duh... are you refuting what I said, or just saying "No" and following it with technobabble to make yourself look like you are "Edumacated"?


It is mostly electrons which are guided toward the poles by the magnetic field and produce the aurora when they encounter other atoms in the upper atmosphere.


Ok... I'm sorry.

You just don't know what you are talking about... forgive me for being brash.... and allow me to enlighten you.


Again.



This is a crossection of the Charge density of the Van Allen radiation Belt.

The OUTER shell, is made up of Mostly Electrons.

The Inner Shell is made up of a mix of mostly Plasma Hydrogen (Electrons + Protons)

This is due to the gradual orbit decay of solar wind particles (ionized hydrogen, electrons, etc) being sent inside of the earths magnetosphere by the collapse of the magnetic field lines on the shadow side of the earth...... here... just let me give you a Video:



The Van Allen belts are *RESONANCE CAVITIES* where charged particles accumulate (Their Natural Gravitational Period around the earth, considering charge imbalances and such)

The FACT that protons WEIGH more than Electrons means that protons will orbit closer to the earth, and their orbit will decay faster.

So, you have a region of the earths equatorial atmosphere that acts as a charge separator between the gradually weakening (with altitude) charge of the Van Allen Belt, and *GROUND*

When the total voltage and current contained in the Van Allen Belt is greater than the Ohmic Resistance of the Atmosphere, current flow WILL occur.

This occurs in higher altitudes as "Halo's", "Elves", and "Sprites"



And of course... down here in the Troposphere... as Lightning.



When you produce a MASSIVE OPAQUE SHIELD in the Van Allen Belt:



It's going to absorb *A GREAT DEAL* of those near relativistic particles racing around the earth at god knows how many times per second.

You see that Blue Plume?

Yeah... that is current flow.



And no. NASA is not saying the density reduction of the thermosphere is caused by CO2. They are saying it is not.


Fair enough... I just thought that it was a tad suspicios, how they threw CO2 out there that fast.

-Edrick



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


when solar wind (hydrogen) intersects the magnetosphere of earth, the electrons are ripped off the atom and collect in the outer Van Allen belt, while the proton spirals inward due to its density.

The electrons are already ripped off of the atom. They come that way. It is not because they “intersect the magnetosphere. Magnetic fields do not cause ionization.

The inner belt is composed of mainly of protons (if it were an even mix of protons and electrons, it wouldn’t have a charge would it?). The source of the protons is the upper atmosphere.

• The outer belt
• largely populated with electrons originating from the solar wind or the ionosphere that have become accelerated by magnetospheric processes
• maximum population typically around L = 4 (meaning the geomagnetic field line that is at 4 Earth radii at the geomagnetic equator) corresponding to an altitude of about 12,000 miles (19,000 km) above the equator; the altitude decreases as one moves toward the poles
• The inner belt
• largely populated with protons originating from decay of neutrons liberated from the upper atmosphere by the impact of galactic cosmic rays (GCR). Some more about cosmic rays.
• typically centered around L = 1.5 corresponding to about 2000 miles above the geomagnetic equator
• extends down to about 250 miles altitude (400 km) over the South Atlantic Ocean
• trapped particles originating as anomalous cosmic rays (ACR) have also recently been identified to populate the inner belt region

www.albany.edu...

Neither the electrons or protons are "orbiting" Earth. They have too little mass and too much energy to do so. They are moving too fast, you yourself mentioned "relativistic" speeds. Do you know what the orbital escape velocity is? They are guided by Earth’s magnetic field. They are guided to the magnetic poles (protons going one way and electrons the other) where the lines of force are perpendicular to the Earth’s surface. That is where they encounter the upper atmosphere.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



The electrons are already ripped off of the atom. They come that way. It is not because they “intersect the magnetosphere. Magnetic fields do not cause ionization.


Yes... that is what "Ionization" means.

Do you believe that the Electrons and Protons that are CAST OFF by the Solar Furnace have the Kindness and Decency to organize themselves in this particular charge imbalance, or do you think that maybe there are some *FORCES* that cause this random "Wind" from the sun to be ORGANIZED in concentric "Shells"?

Like them being organized by MASS, with the lightest particles migrating to the top, and the heaviest particles migrating to the bottom.

You know, like the principle the rest of the Universe operates on... Gravity.


The inner belt is composed of *mainly* of protons (if it were an even mix of protons and electrons, it wouldn’t have a charge would it?).


Are you implying that I stated that the Van Allen Belts do not have a Charge?


The source of the protons is the upper atmosphere.


You are speaking of Cosmic Ray Neutron Production then?

So... I got a question for you...



Wiki - Solar Wind
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 10 and 100 eV.



Are you claiming that these protons just Miraculously Avoid the Earth, so that the Upper Atmosphere Neutron+Cosmic Ray can remain the UNDISPUTED *ONLY SOURCE OF PROTONS ON THE EARTH*!!!!!

Dude.

Protons, from the Sun... hit the earth.


Deal with it.



Neither the electrons or protons are "orbiting" Earth.


An orbit is a Circular path:



You are Wrong, I'm afraid.


They have too little mass and too much energy to do so. They are moving too fast, you yourself mentioned "relativistic" speeds.


First off...

*WHAT I SAID*


The Van Allen belts are *RESONANCE CAVITIES* where charged particles accumulate (Their Natural Gravitational Period around the earth, considering charge imbalances and such)


Do you see the part that I highlighted?

Considering Charge Imbalances and Such.


It is not *JUST* gravity, but their CHARGE that attracts them to the earth, THUS their orbital period would be FAR DIFFERENT than their MASS ALONE indicates.


They are guided by Earth’s magnetic field.


You forgot Inertia, Electric Fields, Gravitational Attraction, etc, etc, etc...

It's a little more complicated a picture than you are painting, I'm afraid.


They are guided to the magnetic poles (protons going one way and electrons the other) where the lines of force are perpendicular to the Earth’s surface. That is where they encounter the upper atmosphere.


yes, that is true.



-Edrick

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 

So you agree that the magnetosphere does not cause electrons to be "ripped off the atoms"? That the source of the ions (protons and electrons) is the Sun?


You know, like the principle the rest of the Universe operates on... Gravity.

The ISS orbits at an altitude that varies around 350km. As we speak, satellite GOCE is orbiting at an altitude of 255 km. Which do you think weighs more? The point being that mass has little to do with orbital height. More massive objects do not tend to settle out of orbit any more than lighter ones do. What "organizes" the particles of the solar wind is not gravity, it is the magnetic field of Earth. Notice that Mars has gravity but no magnetic field and no radiation belts. Why is that if it is gravity which is responsible for holding the belts in place? Shouldn't it (and Venus, and Mercury) have belts of particles?

The particles do not orbit Earth (at least, not in the way you talk about it). While the belts take the shape of a torus, the particles do not travel perpendicularly to the axis, they follow the magnetic lines of force and travel parallel to them (except for a slow "drift", which is also determined by the magnetic field, not gravity).

A charged particle in a constant magnetic field experiences a force perpendicular to its motion. The resulting trajectories of ions and electrons in the magnetosphere are a complex superposition of motions as each particle travels in a spiral around a magnetic field line, bounces back and forth between the North and South Poles, and drifts around the planet, with electrons drifting east and protons drifting west.


www.aero.org...



Are you implying that I stated that the Van Allen Belts do not have a Charge?

No, I'm not. I was responding to this statement:

The Inner Shell is made up of a mix of mostly Plasma Hydrogen (Electrons + Protons)

If the inner belt is a mix of hydrogen plasma doesn't that mean it's an equal mix (hydrogen being composed of one proton and one electron)? I was asking how that could result in the belt possessing a net charge.




Are you claiming that these protons just Miraculously Avoid the Earth, so that the Upper Atmosphere Neutron+Cosmic Ray can remain the UNDISPUTED *ONLY SOURCE OF PROTONS ON THE EARTH*!!!!!

No. I am not claiming that. I am saying that the source the inner belt protons is the upper atmosphere.

Different processes produce and sustain the proton and electron belts. Galactic cosmic rays collide with atoms in Earth's atmosphere and produce showers of secondary products. Some of these products are neutrons that subsequently decay into energetic protons; thus, cosmic rays are the most important source of energetic particles in the inner zone. The telltale clue for the decay source is the dominance of protons over other types of ions. Another clue is the relative stability of the inner zone, which results from a combination of long particle lifetimes in this part of the magnetic field and the slowly varying cosmic ray input.

www.aero.org...


[edit on 7/19/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



So you agree that the magnetosphere does not cause electrons to be "ripped off the atoms"? That the source of the ions (protons and electrons) is the Sun?


Considering that I never Stated that the magnetic field "Rips" electrons from protons, This quote of yours would be known as a "Strawman Fallacy" in which you attempt to belittle my Argument, by manufacturing something to attack, that you CLAIM is my position.

This is called a Failure of Logic.

You should look into that.


The ISS orbits at an altitude that varies around 350km. As we speak, satellite GOCE is orbiting at an altitude of 255 km. Which do you think weighs more? The point being that mass has little to do with orbital height. What "organizes" the particles of the solar wind is not gravity, it is the magnetic field of Earth. Notice that Mars has gravity but no magnetic field and no radiation belts. Why is that if it is gravity which is responsible for holding the belts in place? Shouldn't it (and Venus, and Mercury) have belts of particles?


Blah, Blah, Blah...

Look... if you are not going to refute my *ACTUAL* position, then WHAT would be the only LOGICAL reason that you are posting in response *TO* me argument?

If you think that *ELECTRONS* moving through a *MAGNETIC FIELD* near a *HUGE CHARGE IMBALANCE* is merely a magnetic phenomenon, then I am afraid that you failed basic electricity.

It is called the Lorentz force... it deals with Electrodynamics.


and drifts around the planet, with electrons drifting east and protons drifting west.


Yeah, thanks for that.

So, you are saying that the Van Allen Radiation belts are a.... Electron resonance Cavity?


LOL!

You are ALWAYS full of helpful information Phage!



So, what you are saying *IS* that the Electrons *ORBIT* around the planet...


That is what the words that you are using, MEAN.


You see, since these ARE charged particles that we are talking about, their orbital characteristics would be described not just by the curvature of "Space Time" near the gravity well of earth, but also by the Curvature of the "Magnetic Field Lines" surrounding the earth.

This would cause their orbits to be Eccentric, and oblong paths that fit within the "Region" of the belt.


Have you ever played with a spirograph?







No. I am not claiming that. I am saying that the source the inner belt protons is the upper atmosphere.


And WHAT happens to the protons from the solar wind?


-Edrick



[edit on 19-7-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Considering that I never Stated that the magnetic field "Rips" electrons from protons, This quote of yours would be known as a "Strawman Fallacy" in which you attempt to belittle my Argument, by manufacturing something to attack, that you CLAIM is my position.

My apologies. I must have misunderstood this statement:

when solar wind (hydrogen) intersects the magnetosphere of earth, the electrons are ripped off the atom and collect in the outer Van Allen belt

I thought you meant the solar wind is composed of hydrogen atoms which becomes ionized when they hit the magnetosphere.

I am responding point by point to your statements because they contain apparent fallacies. If your basic points are fallacious, your hypothesis is fallacious.

Yes I am aware of electrodynamics. The movement of charged particles in a magnetic field is determined by the orientation of the magnetic field. That's what I said.

No. I am not saying the Van Allen belts are an electron resonance cavity.

No. I am not saying the particles orbit around the planet. The actual motion would be sort of a zigzag (north-south-north, with a motion east or west). An orbit is elliptical (and a spirograph produces elliptical patterns). The particles follow nothing resembling an elliptical path around the planet.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




Considering that I never Stated that the magnetic field "Rips" electrons from protons, This quote of yours would be known as a "Strawman Fallacy" in which you attempt to belittle my Argument, by manufacturing something to attack, that you CLAIM is my position.


My apologies. I must have misunderstood this statement:


when solar wind (hydrogen) intersects the magnetosphere of earth, the electrons are ripped off the atom and collect in the outer Van Allen belt


OH touché!

You ARE paying attention!


I thought you meant the solar wind is composed of hydrogen atoms which becomes ionized when they hit the magnetosphere.


Yes, I should have stated my perspective more clearly before rashly jumping to a conclusion...

I'm Sorry.

I meant, that Solar wind is composed of Ionized Hydrogen, meaning a disperse "Gas" composed of unattached protons and electrons (separated by thermal energy, but held together by charge)

When they intersect the Magnetic field, the Lorentz force causes the electrons to go one way, and the protons to go another....

Effectively separating them.

Or, as *I* put it... "Ripping them apart"


I am responding point by point to your statements because they contain apparent fallacies. If your basic points are fallacious, your hypothesis is fallacious.


I couldn't agree more. and thank you for helping me to fix the structure of my argument, I hope you understand me now.


No. I am not saying the Van Allen belts are an electron resonance cavity.


Just to be clear... I Am.


No. I am not saying the particles orbit around the planet. The actual motion would be sort of a zigzag (north-south-north, with a motion east or west). An orbit is elliptical (and a spirograph produces elliptical patterns). The particles follow nothing resembling an elliptical path around the planet.


So, what *IS* an electron again?

LOL!

Is it a Point particle, or a probability wave?

-Edrick

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Very interesting stuff gentlemen, but a bit mired in the details.
If at or near a solar minimum the magnetic field of the Earth were to weaken , or the magnetic pole ( or as the case is poles) were to change position or both , then one could easily see a situation wherein the resultant deformations of the field toward a dipole moment could 'streamline' or slightly parabolize the tweaked out teardrop toroid and account for the 'squeezing' away of some of the upper atmosphere.

If correct then if the pole/weakfield position persisted or even "worsened"(should I say 'progressed'?) then one would expect an oscillation in the field to occur as the solar cycle started swinging back around to maximum and with that the chance for magnetic re-coupling to increase ( as the energy levels increase), That appears to be what we have with the discovery of 'Spacequakes' ( I really hate that name for this phenomenon )

As a bit more in the realm of speculation one might imagine that if the 'dipole' moment of the earth reaches some critical stage, that the field might come to resemble the something like one of the horseshoe orbits of some odd planetary bodies, I wish Tesla were alive so that we could ask him if such field shapes were possible.




top topics
 
39
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join