Earth’s Upper Atmosphere is Cooling

by Nancy Atkinson on December 17, 2009

The region of the atmosphere studied by the TIMED mission.  Credit: NASA

New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining activity of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere. This finding also correlates with a fundamental prediction of climate change theory that says the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide.

Earth’s thermosphere and mesosphere have been the least explored regions of the atmosphere, in fact some have called it the “ignorosphere.” The NASA Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) mission was developed to explore the Earth’s atmosphere above 60 km altitude and was launched in December 2001. One of four instruments on the TIMED mission, the Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) instrument, was specifically designed to measure the energy budget of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. The SABER dataset now covers eight years of data and has already provided some basic insight into the heat budget of the thermosphere on a variety of timescales.

The extent of current solar minimum conditions has created a unique situation for recent SABER datasets. The end of solar cycle 23 has offered an opportunity to study the radiative cooling in the thermosphere under exceptionally quiescent conditions.

“The Sun is in a very unusual period,” said Marty Mlynczak, SABER associate principal investigator and senior research scientist at NASA Langley. “The Earth’s thermosphere is responding remarkably — up to an order of magnitude decrease in infrared emission/radiative cooling by some molecules.”

The TIMED measurements show a decrease in the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the Sun. In addition, the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules has decreased by nearly a factor of 10 since early 2002. These observations imply that the upper atmosphere has cooled substantially since then. The research team expects the atmosphere to heat up again as solar activity starts to pick up in the next year.

While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide. Emissions of carbon dioxide may warm the lower atmosphere, but they cool the upper atmosphere, because of the density of the atmospheric layer.

As the atmosphere cools the density will increase, which ultimately may impact satellite operations through increased drag over time.

The SABER dataset is the first global, long-term, and continuous record of the Nitric oxide (NO) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the thermosphere.

“We suggest that the dataset of radiative cooling of the thermosphere by NO and CO2 constitutes a first climate data record for the thermosphere,” says Mlynczak.

The TIMED data provide a fundamental climate data record for validation of upper atmosphere climate models which is an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere. SABER provides the first long-term measurements of natural variability in key terms of the upper atmosphere climate. As the TIMED mission continues, these data derived from SABER will become important in assessing long term changes due to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The findings were presented at the American Geophysical Union fall meeting in San Francisco.

Source: NASA Langley

  • 2ru_press

    @LC

    You are not qualified either if all you do is call people names like some indoctrinated elementary school kid. Stop the name calling already..There are no sides in science; just facts, questions, and theory. Let’s tackle the facts and fair concerns and questions on this whole climate change controversy. No one here is a flat earther or geo-centrists, everyone here would like to have a fair debate. Climate change is obviously real science but the concern here is that there trying to use this science to tax the world to limit CO2 emissions. Let’s start all over sir. Can we both agree on a fact and start from there?

    Photosynthesis takes place primarily in plant leaves, and little to none occurs in stems, etc. The parts of a typical leaf include the upper and lower epidermis, the mesophyll, the vascular bundle(s) (veins), and the stomates. The upper and lower epidermal cells do not have chloroplasts, thus photosynthesis does not occur there. They serve primarily as protection for the rest of the leaf. The stomates are holes which occur primarily in the lower epidermis and are for air exchange: they let CO2 in and O2 out. The vascular bundles or veins in a leaf are part of the plant’s transportation system, moving water and nutrients around the plant as needed. The mesophyll cells have chloroplasts and this is where photosynthesis occurs.

    This is fact. Now how is taxing industrialized countries like the US on CO2 emissions going to help the environment. While other countries will not pay nothing. In my opinion charging $160 billion per year for the 2013-
    2017 commitment period and the amount is expected to be higher after 2017, according to the Copenhagen Treaty under the Finance section on page 47 will not do anything to change any climate. The climate will always change it’s been changing since the beginning of Earth’s existence. So the total cost of this whole SCAM is $800 billion dollars. All going to one bank. Wow! How convenient is that? This is not going to solve the Climate Problem it will solve a financial problem. I think this is pure tyranny, a bad idea and definitely not the way to solve climate change, global warming, global freezing or what ever the claimed problem is. Can we agree on that? If not, provide an intelligent idea so we can fairly debate instead of calling each other names like the guys involved with this climate change program are doing. That’s why people are having a difficult time believing you or anyone else who supports C02 limitation under the guise of this treaty.

  • tareece

    It’s not a surprise how some of the other side react when facts are presented and the opposition will not just “go along”.

    I wonder if the people that really care about the environment really understand what was being proposed in Copenhagen.

    Any time money is taken from one person without consent, its thievery. Any time money is taken from a person THAT IS NOT BACKED by fiscal strength, its suicidal.

    By guaranteeing the Industrialized nation commitment of $100 billion a yr, Ms.Clinton added yet another 800 lb gorilla onto the backs of the next generation.

    Take a look at your paycheck–assuming you are lucky enough to get one— could you not use the taxed portion more efficiently than the government? And now, when the world gets involved, are you seriously telling me this new bureaucracy will be more efficient and cause the economies of the developing countries to act more intelligently in CO2 emissions?

    This things reeks from the get go and has always been a money grab from Day 1…

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    2ru_press says:

    Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah..
    Climate change is about more about changing our ways in energy production and usage so it doesn’t damage the environment. Your ‘tax’ is in fact a trade off. Either use clean sources of energy or pay for the long-term damage to the environment as compensation.
    The consumer of energy wins with more efficient energy production and the environment wins by reducing greenhouse emissions
    Really. If you don’t understand CO2 emissions trading you should keep you opinions to yourself.
    Only a condescending jackass like you could be so stupid!

  • 2ru_press

    GENTLEMEN… DO NOT LISTEN TO Hon. Salacious B. Crumb. He has no creditability. YOU CAN APPROPRIATELY IGNORE ANY OF HIS INDOCTRINATED CHILD LIKE INSULTS. ANYTIME YOU SEE HIS COMMENTS JUST SCROLL RIGHT PASS. You can plainly see his vocabulary is limited and words he can not pronounce are replaced with name calling. This guy and anyone who supports him is guided by junk science and doesn’t give a damn about the real agenda as you can plainly see in his comment. He has made it clear just like all the others that support this global tax matrix. He thinks taxing CO2 in the guise of limiting CO2 emissions will help the climate. LOL! What a joke! Sir, the people do not want to understand CO2 emission trading because it’s a a SCAM. What’s next? Charging the world for Dihydrogen monoxide use. We might as well creating a Dihydrogen monoxide emissions trading grid for this dangerous substance as well. This whole
    Climate Change movement is $800 billion mistake and that will turn in to multi-trillion dollar disaster if supported. The USA wants no parts of this. Hey, I heard Dihydrogen monoxide emissions trading would be a good market. This dangerous substance will end the human race as we know it. What a joke!

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    2ru_press said;

    “GENTLEMEN… DO NOT LISTEN TO Hon. Salacious B. Crumb. He has no creditability. YOU CAN APPROPRIATELY IGNORE ANY OF HIS INDOCTRINATED CHILD LIKE INSULTS. ANYTIME YOU SEE HIS COMMENTS JUST SCROLL RIGHT PASS.’

    Probably good advice from the jackass.

    But of course when you talk about the truth and the evidence, there is always another jackass like 2ru_press whose tactics turn to just wanting to kill the message.

    All fraudsters are easy to spot. They squeal the loudest when you know what they say is true.

    So the only real joke here is YOU.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    So just in case you missed it;

    Climate change is about more about changing our ways in energy production and usage so it doesn’t damage the environment. Your ‘tax’ is in fact a trade off. Either use clean sources of energy or pay for the long-term damage to the environment as compensation.
    The consumer of energy wins with more efficient energy production and the environment wins by reducing greenhouse emissions
    Really. If you don’t understand CO2 emissions trading you should keep you opinions to yourself.

Previous post:

Next post: