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.
Originally posted by purplemer
from you own post..
It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the near future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.
A lots of if buts and maybes....that something might past our solar system in 10.000 years.
I think the thread would have been better titled Seasonal Climates in Every Planet in Solar System.
Ribbon at Edge of Our Solar System: Will the Sun Enter a Million-Degree Cloud of Interstellar Gas?
ScienceDaily (May 24, 2010) — Is the Sun going to enter a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas soon?
Scientists from the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Southwest Research Institute, and Boston University suggest that the ribbon of enhanced emissions of energetic neutral atoms, discovered last year by the NASA Small Explorer satellite IBEX, could be explained by a geometric effect coming up because of the approach of the Sun to the boundary between the Local Cloud of interstellar gas and another cloud of a very hot gas called the Local Bubble. If this hypothesis is correct, IBEX is catching matter from a hot neighboring interstellar cloud, which the Sun might enter in a hundred years.
...
Originally posted by purplemer
I have used the sight most just to show the orbits of the planets. Is this something you disagree with too..
Originally posted by purplemer
In regards to the information you have posted trying to mute skepticalscience.com... You have posted and compared two different studies. You did however fail to mention that NASAs own scientists where skepable of the results..
"If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
It would also imply that the sun's contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.
However, the surprising SIM measurements correspond with a period of unusually long and quiescent solar minimum that extended over 2007 to 2009. It may not be representative of past or future solar cycles, solar scientists caution
[UPDATE 2 11/30: Here are several remarkable statements from climate scientists, one from the emails showing Kevin Trenberth calling for Chris Landsea to be fired for holding the wrong views and and a comment today from Gavin Schmidt justifying gatekeeping in climate science on political grounds. With comments like that, who needs emails?;-)]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr. (born November 2, 1968) is an American professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization [1] in the Said Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year. His interests include understanding the politicization of science, decision making under uncertainty, and policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade.
...
Originally posted by purplemer
You also failed to mention the title of your choosen paper..
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Now there is a big difference between can and is..
..."This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson,
...
Originally posted by purplemer
I could go through all the planets you listed and give you explanations as to why we are seeing climatic / seasonal change occupying. I am sure you could as well if you wanted. You composed a good thread no probs..
thanks and sf/ purp
Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind
www.sciencedaily.com
Sep. 11, 2009 — UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
"The models predicted that the equatorial region should be very dry and should not support cloud formation," said astronomer Henry Roe of Lowell Observatory in Arizona. "But this episode created clouds over both the equator and the south pole. We don't know what set off that sequence, but something gave a pretty good kick to the atmosphere."
Scientists suspect the storm's trigger may have been some kind of geologic activity on the moon's surface, such as a geyser or new mountain range forming. Atmospheric effects may also have set off the storm.
Whatever the cause, once the clouds were established they seem to have spread throughout Titan's atmosphere in waves.
The situation is a new wrinkle in the study of this complex moon.
...
...
The reason for this is totally unclear. One may speculate that an unknown gravitational field within the Solar system slightly redirects the incoming cosmic microwave radiation (in the similar way as a motion with a certain velocity with respect to the rest frame of the cosmological background redirects the cosmic background radiation and leads to modifications of the dipole and quadrupole parts). Such a redirection should be more pronounced for low–l components of the radiation. It should be possible to calculate the gravitational field needed for such a redirection and then to compare that with the observational data of the Solar system and the other observed anomalies.
...
Again, you keep showing more and more that you are not reading the information being provided. It used to be thought that our Solar System would encounter this interstellar cloud within 10,000-50,000 years, but new evidence states that we might be well within the interstellar cloud within the next 100 years, that it is much closer than we thought years ago.
BTW, the way you are responding it seems that you are implying that I am making up the fact that the Solar System has been getting more and more radiation from outside sources, that more and more interstellar dust has been entering not only the Solar System but Earth itself, or that we are noticing more meteors/meteorites are striking Jupiter than ever before, or that scientists have even noticed that comets are returning to the inner Solar System faster than they are supposed to, among other facts... I posted evidence of all of this yet you seem to imply that I am making all this up
BTW, the way you are responding it seems that you are implying that I am making up the fact that the Solar System has been getting more and more radiation from outside sources, that more and more interstellar dust has been entering not only the Solar System but Earth itself, or that we are noticing more meteors/meteorites are striking Jupiter than ever before, or that scientists have even noticed that comets are returning to the inner Solar System faster than they are supposed to, among other facts... I posted evidence of all of this yet you seem to imply that I am making all this up
This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change
Please go ahead, so far you have only shown to not have read the information provided, and you show to have already made up your mind even when it is obvious you don't know what you are saying.
gain my main question to you is, why post in this thread if you are not properly reading the information provided first? It is obvious you are responding with your mind already made up and don't want to even entertain the possibility that there is a common source for all the changes we are noticing in the other planets and moons on the Solar System.
A NOAA National Geophysical Data Center website states “the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.” [bold emphasis in original] The following figure is from that website.
www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
magnetic disturbance in Earth's magnetic field is a direct effect due to the strengthening of the sun's magnetic field which also indicates that the Sun's overall activity had been increasing.
www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and/or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects.
Originally posted by purplemer
Regardless of how it is put we are not in the interstellar cloud by your own admission. It cannot be used as a factor causing solar climate change if we are not in it yet.
Originally posted by purplemer
Interestingly though the suns heliosphere has shrunk a lot in the last decade or so. Incase you did n ot know It is the giant electromagnetic bubble around the sun that keeps stuff away from us. Really it is the atmosphere of the solar system. Maybe that would be another avenue for you to explore.
Originally posted by purplemer
I sorry I was not trying to imply you are making this all up. I think that a lot of this information is easy to interpret wrong. I do not deny that the solar system is acting strange. We have ISON coming later this year. Predicted to be the brightest comet in the history of mankind. We have stuff come down in Russia and other strange behaviour before that. Strange comet behaviour indicates something may be adrift. That does not mean it is a cause of solar climate change.
Originally posted by purplemer
Again I stand by my comment that we by far do not have enough data to say if planets experiencing climatic change. Some of there orbits are so slow we are yet to record a single seasonal year on them.
Originally posted by Phage
No. Your quote is talking about the AA index. That data is derived from only two observatories. The source says this:www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and/or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects.
If instead of the AA index, the Ap index (which is more representative of global activity) is used, the results are somewhat different.
Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.
Originally posted by Phage
But of course you are aware that geomagnetic activity is not a direct measure of total solar activity since it depends on whether or not a CME encounters Earth's magnetosphere. Geogmagnetic activity is not really the best way to gauge Solar activity.
Hidden Portals in Earth's Magnetic Field
...
A favorite theme of science fiction is "the portal"--an extraordinary opening in space or time that connects travelers to distant realms. A good portal is a shortcut, a guide, a door into the unknown. If only they actually existed....
It turns out that they do, sort of, and a NASA-funded researcher at the University of Iowa has figured out how to find them.
"We call them X-points or electron diffusion regions," explains plasma physicist Jack Scudder of the University of Iowa. "They're places where the magnetic field of Earth connects to the magnetic field of the Sun, creating an uninterrupted path leading from our own planet to the sun's atmosphere 93 million miles away."
Observations by NASA's THEMIS spacecraft and Europe's Cluster probes suggest that these magnetic portals open and close dozens of times each day. They're typically located a few tens of thousands of kilometers from Earth where the geomagnetic field meets the onrushing solar wind. Most portals are small and short-lived; others are yawning, vast, and sustained. Tons of energetic particles can flow through the openings, heating Earth's upper atmosphere, sparking geomagnetic storms, and igniting bright polar auroras.
...
So you think looking at two specific locations gives a better idea of what is going on? Global averages are meaningless? But how else can you determine a global effect?
First of all, of course that if you use the Ap index it would seem that there was no increase in solar activity because it is an average of many stations showing the global activity.
Yes, with an average global increase. That's why data from a limited number of locations is not the greatest when looking for trends.
We have been seeing not only record high temperatures but also record low temperatures.
Yes. It does that when Solar minimum is approaching, especially a deep minimum. But didn't you say that Solar activity is rising because of that cloud thingy?
Overall solar activity lowered to a crawl at about the end of 2005 at a time when we experienced a lowering in temperature on Earth.
Yes, and that excerpt is from a paragraph comparing the AA index with the AP index.
Notice also how the excerpt and link I gave specifically states, and again I quote:
Because of the difference in units of presentation, the values of AA* and Ap* are not the same so that different major magnetic storm onset and end threshold values are used for the two series. However their comparison for the years of overlapping coverage show that relative frequency of occurrence of major storms per year are similar. Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and.or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects. Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.
Originally posted by Phage
So you think looking at two specific locations gives a better idea of what is going on? Global averages are meaningless? But how else can you determine a global effect?
Yes, with an average global increase. That's why data from a limited number of locations is not the greatest when looking for trends.
Because of the difference in units of presentation, the values of AA* and Ap* are not the same so that different major magnetic storm onset and end threshold values are used for the two series. However their comparison for the years of overlapping coverage show that relative frequency of occurrence of major storms per year are similar. Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and.or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects. Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.
the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900
Right. I quoted the whole paragraph and it makes it quite clear as stated. The AA index shows an increase. The Ap index does not. The Ap index is a global average. The AA index is specific to two locations.
And please, do not try to twist what they are saying. It can be understood clearly.
Originally posted by Phage
Right. I quoted the whole paragraph and it makes it quite clear as stated. The AA index shows an increase. The Ap index does not. The Ap index is a global average. The AA index is specific to two locations.
...
Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.
Originally posted by Phage
Don't just ignore the data that contradicts your hypothesis.
The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years
An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun's activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades
October 28, 2004
The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.
...
Yeah, we've been through this. The problem is, the data for that period is not complete and not everyone agrees with Willson's method of synthesis.
You can clearly see the upward trend during those cycles of solar minimum.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
Data from these two missions were necessary to fill in some time gaps in the ACRIM record, but it is this splicing that makes the results so controversial.
Cosmic ray levels increase during solar minima, yes. That is because of the contraction of the heliosphere. You didn't "prove" it, it's a well known phenomenon.
This in turn also affects the dynamics of all the planets with an atmosphere including Earth.
THEN they say "ALSO the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher..."
That's because it is discussing two different things; the overall amount of activity and the intensity. And both are talking about the AA index. And again, the Ap index does not show that.
So you see, the first sentence I excerpted above is not dependent of what they say next about the aa...
Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez
How interesting to witness someone so passionate towards such a mess of erroneous connections you are presenting.
Quite the dangerous mindset by individuals placed in powerful positions.
Thankfully, you have very little here.
What? The Sun's activity stopped? Who said that?
The above research was done without taking in consideration what Wilson's research found, and that is that the Sun's activity hadn't stopped in the 1950s, or 1980s as the AGW camp keep claiming.
www.mpg.de...
The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time.
Originally posted by Phage
Yeah, we've been through this. The problem is, the data for that period is not complete and not everyone agrees with Willson's method of synthesis.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
Data from these two missions were necessary to fill in some time gaps in the ACRIM record, but it is this splicing that makes the results so controversial.
Originally posted by Phage
Cosmic ray levels increase during solar minima, yes. That is because of the contraction of the heliosphere. You didn't "prove" it, it's a well known phenomenon.
Originally posted by Phage
It has not been demonstrated that it has an effect on Earth, much less other planets.
Originally posted by Phage
Look at the title of that page:
Major Magnetic Storms 1868-2007
According to the AA* criteria
Yes. According to the AA index (based on 2 locations) geomagnetic activity is higher but the AP index (based on global readings) is not (since 1932). It's like saying that an increase in rainfall in Portland and San Francisco indicates that there is a global increase in rainfall.
Originally posted by Phage
That's because it is discussing two different things; the overall amount of activity and the intensity. And both are talking about the AA index. And again, the Ap index does not show that.
Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also,