This ESA article was flagged up by Ulric Lyons and I though it was a good followup to Tim Cullen’s recent post on magnetospheres.
Earth’s magnetic field provides vital protection
Propagation of a solar wind stream
A chance alignment of planets during a passing gust of the solar wind has allowed scientists to compare the protective effects of Earth’s magnetic field with that of Mars’ naked atmosphere. The result is clear: Earth’s magnetic field is vital for keeping our atmosphere in place.
The alignment took place on 6 January 2008. Using ESA’s Cluster and Mars Express missions to provide data from Earth and Mars, respectively, scientists compared the loss of oxygen from the two planets’ atmospheres as the same stream of solar wind hit them. This allowed a direct evaluation of the effectiveness of Earth’s magnetic field in protecting our atmosphere.
They found that while the pressure of the solar wind increased at each planet by similar amounts, the increase in the rate of loss of martian oxygen was ten times that of Earth’s increase.
Such a difference would have a dramatic impact over billions of years, leading to large losses of the martian atmosphere, perhaps explaining or at least contributing to its current tenuous state.
Artist’s impression of Venus, Earth and Mars interacting with the solar wind.
The result proves the efficacy of Earth’s magnetic field in deflecting the solar wind and protecting our atmosphere.
“The shielding effect of the magnetic field is easy to understand and to prove in computer simulations, thus it has become the default explanation,” says Yong Wei from the Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Germany, who led the study.
Now, by making measurements during a planetary alignment when the two planets were being hit by exactly the same part of the solar wind, the team have proved it in reality.
They now hope to extend their work by incorporating data from ESA’s Venus Express spacecraft, which also carries a sensor that can measure the loss of its atmosphere.
Venus will provide an important new perspective on the issue because like Mars, it has no global magnetic field, yet it is similar in size to Earth and has a much thicker atmosphere.
It will therefore provide unique data to help place the Earth and Mars results in context.
Read the rest of the article at the ESA website
[update by co-mod, is a paper in JGR, with paywall
“Enhanced atmospheric oxygen outflow on Earth and Mars driven by a corotating interaction region
Abstract
Solar wind controls non-thermal escape of planetary atmospheric volatiles, regardless of the strength of planetary magnetic fields. For both Earth with a strong dipole and Mars with weak remnant fields, the oxygen ion (O+) outflow has been separately found to be enhanced during corotating interaction region (CIR) passage. Here we compared the enhancements of O+ outflow on Earth and Mars driven by a CIR in January, 2008 when Sun, Earth and Mars were approximately aligned. The CIR propagation was recorded by STEREO, ACE, Cluster and Mars Express (MEX). During the CIR passage, Cluster observed enhanced flux of upwelling oxygen ions above the Earth’s polar region, while MEX detected an increased escape flux of oxygen ions in the Martian magnetosphere. We found that, (1) under a solar wind dynamic pressure increase by 2-3 nPa, the rate of increase in Martian O+ outflow flux was one order higher than those on Earth; (2) as response to the same part of the CIR body, the rate of increase in Martian O+ outflow flux was on the same order as for Earth. The comparison results imply that the dipole effectively prevents coupling of solar wind kinetic energy to planetary ions, and the distance to the Sun is also crucially important for planetary volatile loss in our inner solar system.”
[/update]
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Not even to Wikipedia, the solar “wind” is anything resembling a mechanical “wind” composed of “little pebbles”:
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 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time. These particles can escape the Sun’s gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.
They,remarkably, include a photo of the Birkeland´s “Terrela” experiment.
In other words: Charge, current, which does everything charge and current does.
Here another example, how Earth is losing atmosphere at the
top of the atmosphere, which Warmist GCMs do not account for.
Clear is that the lost atmosphere volume must be deducted in
warming scenarios, because lost air mass cannot heat up the
globe…..Failure to do that results in mistaken
model forecasts… no wonder….
JS
Some good stuff here about the New Horizons space craft SWAP mission to monitor the solar wind out to pluto…
http://spacespin.org/article.php/swap-solar-wind-interactions-jupiter
“…From a distance of about 0.4 astronomical unit (one AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun, or about 100 million miles) from the planet, SWAP, built by Southwest Research Institute, observed an immense structure of compressed, dense, hot ionized gas that forms in the solar wind, called a co-rotating interaction region. These structures form when solar wind streams that are both fast and slow come out of the Sun, and flow out in different directions in response to the rotation of the Sun. The fast layers try to overtake the slow layers yet are unable to flow through them, instead compressing the slow material like a snow plow and bunching up solar wind to create the co-rotating interaction region. These regions contain significantly higher densities and pressures that eventually expand and form discontinuities, or shocks, in the solar wind, which spread out and away from the high pressure regions.
‘These solar wind structures collide with the magnetospheres of planets and, we believe, cause major variations in their structures,’ says Dr. David McComas, SWAP principal investigator and senior executive director of the SwRI Space Science and Engineering Division. ‘Because it has the largest magnetosphere in the solar system, the effects of the solar wind at Jupiter could have significant implications for all the planets.’ …”
Part of Jack Eddy’s conjectured solar system wiring loom?
In my view the Earth’s magnetosphere beside protecting the Earth’s biosphere from a deadly radiation has another very important role in channeling variation of the solar magnetic activity into the geo-polar regions, and in doing so provides ever-changing tropospheric temperature and climate change essential for the continuous prosperity and evolution of that biosphere.
Here (see the link below) I explain some aspects of the recently discovered sun-Earth electric & magnetic link, including a quote from Dr. L. Svalgaard, as an initial introduction into possible theoretical explanation for this potentially primary factor in synchronizing the observed climate change with the solar magnetic activity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm
(work in progress)
@Vukcevic: Also the former south atlantic magnetic anomaly, which now reaches and surpasses the south-american west coasts, would be related to climate. It would be interesting and perhaps possible, as you have found a relation, to establish an equation which could relate both.
And, not only that but, knowing your Sun´s polar field equation and its relation to the actual energy transmitted to the earth, it would be possible to know, in advance, how much the GMF will decrease in the coming years.
Let me summarize my (mis)understanding of the article:
1. Mars has almost no magnetic field and a very thin atmosphere.
2. The Earth has a magnetic field which protects our atmosphere from being blown off by solar wind, therefore that’s what must have happened on Mars.
3. Venus has no magnetic field and a very thick atmosphere.That provides an important new perspective.
Who are they making fun of? Taxpayers, of course.
See:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/ast09dec97_3/
That was interesting. Also checked wiki for magnetosphere and solar wind.
Is the north pole then negative to the south pole, vice versa, neutral, or not known? Seems there would be a separation of the ions and electrons by the field. That is a fact I have never found in print and obscures my ability to add anything to such a post as this. Does someone have a link?
So we owe our fate to our planet’s iron core?
wayne says:May 16, 2012 at 12:14 am
Is the north pole then negative to the south pole, vice versa, neutral, or not known?
Seems there would be a separation of the ions and electrons by the field.
Starting with a positive solar wind:
1) The impacted day-side is positively charged.
2) The night-side accumulates negative charge.
This makes the Earth-Moon system very interesting:
a) New Moon: Earth’s day-side[+ve] faces the Lunar night-side[-ve]
b) Full Moon: Lunar day-side[+ve] faces the Earth’s night-side[-ve]
These regular transits “spark” geomagnetic events.
Magnetospheres effectively act as a “plasma rifle”.
The accumulating night-side negative charge is released in pulses of excess charge straight down the “barrel” of the magnetotail.
The same situation applies to an inferior conjunction with Venus.
However, Venus is larger than the Moon and can accumulate a lot more negative charge.
Therefore, the upcoming Transit of Venus is risky because Earth will be looking down the “barrel” of Venus’s “plasma rifle” and effectively playing “Russian Roulette” with the accumulated negative charge on the night-side of Venus.
Fingers crossed.
vukcevic says: May 15, 2012 at 1:23 pm
In my view the Earth’s magnetosphere beside protecting the Earth’s biosphere from a deadly radiation has another very important role in channeling variation of the solar magnetic activity into the geo-polar regions.
The upper atmosphere does the protecting… the solar wind hits the upper atmosphere and forms the ionosphere. The same applies to Venus.
The Earth’s magnetic field forms “polar cusps” and shapes the torus radiation belts.
Basically:
“Magnetospheres” are NOT primarily magnetic phenomena: they are electric “Plasma Sheaths”. That is why ALL planets have “Magnetospheres”.
Mars, Mercury, Moon and Venus all support large “Magnetospheres” while having tiny intrinsic magnetic fields.
The result is clear: Earth’s magnetic field is vital for keeping our atmosphere in place.
This conclusion is without any foundation.
Venus retains an atmosphere without a meaningful magnetic field.
The observations are that the solar wind strips away a planet’s atmosphere.
Therefore, a terrestrial planet with an atmosphere is either:
a) Very young
and / or
b) Actively outgassing
and / or
c) Acquiring atmospheric particles
Such a difference would have a dramatic impact over billions of years
Atmospheric stripping by the solar wind is very significant in the geologic timeframe.
A comparison of the terrestrial planets shows that Venus and Earth are the exceptions:
The Earth is still outgassing and acquires particles from the moon and meteorites.
Venus is either outgassing and / or very young.
It will be interesting to see if we experience auroras, Sporadic-E and Noctilucent clouds during the transit of Venus because this would indicate Earth’s atmosphere is also acquiring particles from Venus.
James says: May 16, 2012 at 2:28 am
So we owe our fate to our planet’s iron core?
The Earth’s magnetic field generates “Polar Cusps” which weaken the protective “Magnetosphere” by providing easy pathways that channel the solar wind down into the upper atmosphere around the poles. Therefore, the Earth’s intrinsic magnetism is NOT protective: quite the opposite.
The Earth’s magnetic field has been weakening for the last 2,000 years so the “Polar Cusp” weaknesses are becoming less of an issue. This implies:
a) Earth’s iron core has slowly been losing its permanent magnetism for 2,000 years
and / or
b) Earth’s radiation belts have been slowly discharging for 2,000 years
and / or
c) The Sun has been slowly reducing its electrical output for 2,000 years
PS: The notion of an internal dynamo driven by a “convection cell” is simply preposterous:
1) The internal density gradient is wrong – it is denser nearer the core.
1a) Have you ever tried sinking to the bottom of a pool while wearing “water wings”.
1b) Have you ever tried to get a hot brick to float on the top of cold water.
2) An upward radial path [from the core] towards the surface laterally dissipates heat.
Basically, heat [in the form of magma] is channeled upwards through faults in the Earth.
The channeled heat[magma] then either “pools and cools” or “grows and blows”.
@Wayne: Apart from the link gave by Vukcevic, above, there is another from his site:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
@Tim: Thanks for your explanation. See:
@Tim: Think about the “atmosphere” around particles. This is an everyday experience when dealing with powders´rheology: The higher the “statics”, charge, the lower the “bulk density”. Everything looks easier when you break the barriers of “settled science” and begin observing the analogies. “As above so below”. Thanks again.
Tim: “Atmospheric stripping and replenishing by outgassing……’
what about the IPCC GCMs, the general circulation models, do they
count the atmosphere as static + adding CO2 thus increasing the
atmospheric volume or do they account for stripping losses and
outgassing gains?
Thanks JS
J. Seifert says:May 16, 2012 at 5:57 pm
what about the IPCC GCMs
I don’t know specifically but I would be very surprised if they included:
a) particles lost/gained from space
b) particles out gassed/absorbed by the planetary body
c) particles out gassed/absorbed by the oceans
d) particles out gassed/absorbed by the biosphere
Basically, they can’t fully define and quantify the many cyles, flows, inputs and outputs that are involved.
That is why their computer models are bogus.
That is why their computer predictions fail.
That is why their “settled science” fails to qualify as “science”.
I have never seen any “accounting” done in regard to the atmosphere.
If CO2 PPM is rising then something must be falling:
1) What is being lost?
2) Where it is being lost?
3) How it is being lost?
or
4) Is the atmosphere expanding?
or
5) Is atmospheric pressure increasing?
Who knows?
They definitely don’t!
Dear Tim, thanks for your important points……
But, in Wikipedia/somewhere else AGW, I read that atmospheric losses are
miniscule, only 50 kilogram of atmosphere loss per day….
Is this another AGW lie?
Cheers and Thanks….JS
Tim,
is my view correct that for each volume unit of CO2 blown/emitted into the
atmosphere on the ground…… the same volume would be shaved off by
stripping at the top? …..this way the atmosphere has not been blown away
over the millenias? Thus stays constant in volume? Thanks JS
Tim: You seem to be the most competent off all on the subject. One more thing
I would like to point out:
At WUWT, there was a post “Giant veil of cold plasma around Earth now detected….”
and it was said that solar radiation crushes atmosphere molecules, stripping away
electrons and leaving only protons (positive charge) as plasma, which then disappears
into space… thus a second, simultaneous solar process of atmospheric stripping
besides solar winds…. Because this happens continuously, whereas the winds are
discontinous….this seems to me a stronger cause for atmospheric losses….
Your opinion? Thanks….
JS
J. Seifert says: May 16, 2012 at 11:41 pm
I read that atmospheric losses are miniscule, only 50 kilogram of atmosphere loss per day….
The overall losses are assumed to be trivial but precisely quantifying the atmospheric inputs and outputs is really a guessing game.
However, let’s run with 50 kilograms a day: 50 x 365 / 1,000 = 18.25 tonnes per year.
=> -18,250 tonnes per millennium
=> -18,250,000 tonnes per million years
=> -18,250,000,000 tonnes per billion years
This is trivial in relation to the estimated 130,000,000 tonnes of volcanic CO2 released into the atmosphere each year. If we include volcanic water vapour and sulphur dioxide the annual estimate for volcanic atmospheric emissions probably doubles and we get 260,000,000 tonnes per year.
=> +260,000,000,000 tonnes per millennium
=> +260,000,000,000,000 tonnes per million years
=> +260,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes per billion years
Volcanic emissions are non-trivial on a geologic timescale when compared to an estimated atmospheric mass of 5×10**18 kilograms.
=> +5,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
These volcanic numbers [alone] give us a big accounting challenge in the geologic timeframe if everything else is to remain equal [which of course it doesn’t].
The majority of atmospheric losses will be of the lighter elements.
This is especially applicable to hydrogen which currently only accounts for 0.55 ppm of the atmosphere.
However, Wikipedia estimates that the Earth’s initial atmosphere “based on today’s volcanic evidence” would have contained:
60% hydrogen
20% oxygen (mostly in the form of water vapor),
10% carbon dioxide,
5 to 7% hydrogen sulfide,
Plus some nitrogen, carbon monoxide, free hydrogen, methane and inert gases.
So we are looking at hydrogen being reduced from 60% down to a mere 0.55 ppm.
Does that sound like: 50 kilogram of atmosphere loss per day?
From another perspective we can assume that atmospheric hydrogen is released when ultraviolet light [from the sun] breaks down H2O [4,000 ppm (0.40% over full atmosphere)] into its constituent elements: hydrogen and oxygen. If the hydrogen is then mainly “stripped” away [into space] from the atmosphere then we are left with an oxygen enriched atmosphere. This is reflected in the 209,460 ppm (20.946%) of oxygen in the atmosphere.
Atmospheric weight: 5,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes
Atmospheric H20: 0.40 %
Atmospheric H20: 20,000,000,000,000 tonnes
Atmospheric H20: 20,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms
Atmospheric H loss: 50 kilograms per day
Atmospheric H loss: 0.00000000000025% per day
Another perspective is based upon the surface area of the Earth: 510,070,000 sq km.
This loss equates to: (50 * 1,000) / 510,070,000 = 0.0009802 grams per sq km per day.
Is this another AGW lie?
It really is a far more widespread charade where people pretend to “know everything” when in reality they “know nothing” or “very little”.
J. Seifert says: May 17, 2012 at 1:06 am
At WUWT, there was a post “Giant veil of cold plasma around Earth now detected….” and it was said that solar radiation crushes atmosphere molecules, stripping away electrons and leaving only protons (positive charge) as plasma, which then disappears into space… thus a second, simultaneous solar process of atmospheric stripping besides solar winds…. Because this happens continuously, whereas the winds are discontinous….this seems to me a stronger cause for atmospheric losses….
My guess is that the “50 kilogram of atmosphere loss per day” is a very significant under estimate given the large numbers involved.
However, your guess is as good as mine.
Tim, many thanks for your time and numbers…. JS
Tim, I just read your reply once over again…. —another interesting aspect: “Where
does the oxygen of the atmosphere come from?
–Biological plant output is generally assumed….. but you point to another
variant: cosmic UV H2O decomposition combined with hydrogen stripping…
— new insights…. JS