It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"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
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.
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.
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
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.
Probably not, since it's completelly different mechanisms behind the Van Allen belt and the thermosphere.
"Van Allen Belt's being Grounded to the Earth recently... (Repeatedly)" Where did you read that?
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.
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.
And no. NASA is not saying the density reduction of the thermosphere is caused by CO2. They are saying it is not.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
The Van Allen belts are *RESONANCE CAVITIES* where charged particles accumulate (Their Natural Gravitational Period around the earth, considering charge imbalances and such)
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.
You know, like the principle the rest of the Universe operates on... 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.
Are you implying that I stated that the Van Allen Belts do not have a Charge?
The Inner Shell is made up of a mix of mostly Plasma Hydrogen (Electrons + Protons)
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*!!!!!
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.
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?
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?
and drifts around the planet, with electrons drifting east and protons drifting west.
No. I am not claiming that. I am saying that the source the inner belt protons is the upper atmosphere.
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.
when solar wind (hydrogen) intersects the magnetosphere of earth, the electrons are ripped off the atom and collect in the outer Van Allen belt
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.
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.