Why is there less daylight?, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 3-9-2009 @ 07:00 PM by tinfoilman

reply to post by nerbot

Yeah, but I wonder if anyone else and how many other people noticed it. Or if anyone.

reply posted on 3-9-2009 @ 07:15 PM by PilgriMage

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by skycopilot

One minute earlier and 2 minutes later or a loss of 3 minutes.

You didn't lose those minutes. They moved to March.
Precession. Drives astrologers nuts.

www.larry.denenberg.com...

www.analemma.com...

Here are two links that explains some major things contributing to the difference in sunset and sunrise times during the year. It's kind of complicated thing really and there are a lot of sites explaining things either wrong or too simple.

About the sun and the OP's subject itself. It might be just something psychological, but last few years the summers have been strange here in Finland as well. The sunlight indeed feels very 'harsh and raw' somehow. It almost feels like the sun rays stings your skin when it's a hot and clear/sunny day. On the other hand, there have been so few sunny days this summer, the weather was like in the UK here in northern Finland this summer. I also somewhat agree with the color thing. The sun seems to be very pale and white, not orange/yellow like I always assumed it to bee. The only time sun really looked yellow to me was a few weeks ago, when I filmed a whole sunrise here at northern Finland.. After the sun was completely up, the reddish hue completely disappeared quickly and the sun was as pale as ever.

Maybe it's because of the missing sun spots and stuff, we'll see how it goes now when the winter is slowly coming. Hopefully I remember to keep my eye on the sun daily.

reply posted on 3-9-2009 @ 08:07 PM by DragonsDemesne

Some people mentioned precession, and that is definitely one of the causes. There might be other reasons, too, but I suspect that if you were to average the yearly daylight across the 26000 year precession cycle, you'd find that over time daylight isn't being lost. You are probably right in that one particular year, such as this year, may have had less daylight by a few minutes than another year in the past, but I'd wager it all averages out in the end, and in a thousand years, someone like you will be asking why there is MORE daylight :p

reply posted on 4-9-2009 @ 12:02 AM by Phage

reply to post by PilgriMage

I wasn't kidding about the minutes moving to March. Well, not entirely. Check it out. In the 10 year span we were talking about the August day got shorter but the March day got longer.
www.bcca.org...

Because of precession the length of summer days will get shorter and the length of winter days will get longer (within limits, on a cycle of about 25,800) years. Of course, that depends on whether you are in the northern or southern hemisphere.

[edit on 9/4/2009 by Phage]

reply posted on 4-9-2009 @ 12:42 AM by zorgon

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Now to me it seems that if I'm standing in the sun it's bearing down on me like a directional heat lamp. Like a spotlight or something. Now it feels like it just wants to cook you alive or something.

Yes and sunburns come quicker... many blame the 'hole' in the Ozone.. but that isn't it...

reply posted on 4-9-2009 @ 12:46 AM by Paroxysm

Originally posted by zorgon
Yes and sunburns come quicker... many blame the 'hole' in the Ozone.. but that isn't it...

I have noticed that as well.

Ok, I will bite. Why do YOU think this is?

reply posted on 4-9-2009 @ 01:10 AM by Vanitas

Originally posted by skycopilot

So a couple of days ago, I found an online almanac and entered in Aug. 30, 2009 and the same date for 1990. I discovered that there is LESS sunlight time today. In fact, there are 3 fewer minutes of sunlight. The sunrise is one minute later and the sunset is 2 minutes earlier.

I suppose that comes from having a basically inaccurate calendar (i.e. the date that we call September 4th this year does not really correspond to so-called September 4th, say, twenty years ago).

This may sound stupid - and I apologise if it is - but shouldn't the actual "amount" of daylight be measured rather by comparing the longest day (and the shortest) of a year with the longest (and the shortest) day of any other given year? Unless I am very much mistaken, they should have the same length, regardless of the date.

reply posted on 4-9-2009 @ 01:16 AM by Phage

reply to post by Vanitas

The calendar correction is made every four years but you are right about the length of the longest and shortest days not changing.

reply posted on 4-9-2009 @ 02:23 AM by Vanitas

reply to post by Phage

I am not sure the correction (by means of the leap day) REALLY offsets the discrepancies in the long run... but that's a long story, and I am not at my most articulate today. ;-)

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Vanitas]

reply posted on 4-9-2009 @ 04:03 AM by zorgon

Originally posted by Paroxysm

Originally posted by zorgon
Yes and sunburns come quicker... many blame the 'hole' in the Ozone.. but that isn't it...

I have noticed that as well.

Ok, I will bite. Why do YOU think this is?

TSI...

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects.

We may be getting less visible wavelengths and more of the other spectral bands. Being out in the field a lot I have noticed a change in amount of light. And up here in the high desert of Nevada the skies are clear...

Solar Trend Could Change Climate

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

www.scienceagogo.com...

NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
www.sciencedaily.com...

DAILY TOTAL SOLAR IRRADIANCE
www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Egyptian Circa 1000 BC Standard attire yet they were outside in the sun most of the day... just look at any of the old drawings... mostly naked

Egyptian in the desert today -- all covered up

I believe it likely that the solar radiation was different back then and you could stay out in the sun a lot longer without burning or drying up

Its a work in progress though... still gathering facts, but it seems NASA is working along the same lines now

reply posted on 4-9-2009 @ 04:05 AM by Exuberant1

reply to post by zorgon

Thanks Zorgon!

I appreciate you taking the time to compose such a detailed response.

reply posted on 4-9-2009 @ 11:15 PM by tinfoilman

reply to post by zorgon

Those outfits they wear in the desert for protection. Well if they did wear them back then then logically you would expect to see artwork with both the people wearing them and without.

Like even in a hot region guys don't always have their shirt on you know even today. So, our artwork reflects that. Some pictures and art have shirts and some don't you know.

Anyway, to the point, one piece of art doesn't tell us too much, but what would tell us a whole bunch is IF ALL their pictures are like that. And as far I've seen they are. They always friggin shirtless.

What a person would really want to know is if their attire all of a sudden changed and exactly when they started wearing the new clothes. Just trace it back to that if that can be done and you'd have your answer pretty much.

EDIT: The reason being is because if ALL their artwork is like that, then the simplest logical conclusion of why they didn't wear that new type of clothing is simply that type of clothing was never used back then. If so, you could conclude that's the case simply because it wasn't needed.

If on the other hand what you see is some pictures where they're mostly naked and others where they're mostly covered up for protection then the art would be no different than what we have today. People just like to draw the body you know.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by tinfoilman]

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^