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 Sun is Undergoing a State Change --- And That May be Very Bad News

page: 5
74
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister1k
What about the magnetism and gravity of the Sun,do these things not fuel the solar cycles per say??


Yes. Solar cycles come from internal physics of the Sun. It is very complicated, and gravity, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics & magnetism are all coupled and important.


And what about the position of our solar system in relation to the rest of the galaxy ie Milkyway. Would this not have effects on the Sun and solar cycles?? Would our apparent soon approaching Galactic alignment have anything to do with Solar Cycles??? I am just asking.


No effect.


The only problem I got with the global warming thing is the math. 287 PPM C02 1832 antarctic ice core levels. And now 390 PPM via Wikipedia. OK we got an increase, but is that last 103 PPM all our fault? I think not. How much of it is really our fault??? Sure we must be contributing somewhat, but our world population has exploded since 287PPM. Agreed. But whatever lets say we take ownership of the last 100 PPM.


Scientists have measured the isotopic composition of the CO2 to determine that the added CO2 is a consequence of fossil fuels. But if, via warming, natural sources of CO2 start getting emitted (or take in less than usual, same net effect) then not every molecule of CO2 added will be directly linked to fossil coal/oil/gas, but humans are still responsible for it.

There are other greenhouse gases which have significant added radiative forcing (IPCC reports reviews them all, CO2 is about half of total). Some of them (e.g. CFCs) had no prior natural concentration, so humans are responsible for 100% of them.



How much of the atmosphere is CO2 as a percentage by volume? Atmosphere is comprised of 78% nitrogen,21% oxygen. 78 plus 21=99 okay 1% to go
A trace gas is a gas which makes up less than 1% by volume of the Earth's atmosphere, and it includes all gases except nitrogen (78.1%) and oxygen (20.9%). The most abundant trace gas at 0.934% is argon.
Several atmospheric trace gases such as tropospheric ozone O3, sulfur dioxide SO2 and nitrogen oxides NOx are anthropogenic, chemically reactive factors of air quality at a regional level. Others such as carbon dioxide CO2 and methane CH4 are important greenhouse gases.But not even .1% mmm!


So what?

The physical parameters that matter are infrared emissivities in the specific electromagnetic regions. You have to multiply the per-molecule effect (which can vary by factors of thousands between some molecules and others) times the actual concentration in the atmosphere. When you do that, H20 and CO2 turn out to be the biggest contributors. Because the planet is covered with oceans and H20 comes in and out of the atmosphere based on weather, there is no direct human effect on H2O; the amount of H2O in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. Therefore the gas that has the most directly changable effect is CO2.

It's not the only one which is changed by humans though.

There are additional greenhouse gases which have significant radiative forcing, and they have even higher per-molecule contribution to global warming but have even lower concentrations in the atmosphere. (reducing these will be more economically efficient than CO2)

What concentration do you need for sarin in your air to be a problem?

Less than CO2.


I loved the 70s it was only about 315 PPM,I don't know what I am gonna do when it gets to 400 PPM. Sorry the math doesn't work for me, I got a hard time buying that 100 ppm caused by us is causing this kinda of climate evolution.


Why? People have done this for a living for decades with comprehensive physical computations and scientific observations. I agree, it is not at all intuitively obvious, but many things in modern science are not intuitively obvious and yet are very true.

Intuitively, uranium looks and feels like an especially dense piece of metal, and that's it. And yet, in some cases it's very different from your usual hunk of iron.


Whats going on under our feet?.C02 has nothing to do with earthquakes.Earth is evolving and something pushing it. Hot here,Cold there.
Rain here, No rain there. It's all evolving. I'll follow the sun.

Radiant heat needs no medium, it is nothing more than long wavelength light... infrared light as a matter of fact. This is the heat you get on your skin when standing out in the noon day Sun.


Yes, but the visible-spectrum light still transmits the most energy and it causes heat when it hits your skin, contributing to the sensation of heat.
If you were to filter out the visible light at mid-day, you would feel much less hot.


Further, as the meteorologists indicate, a lot of Earth's heat comes from absorbed electro magnetic energy from the Sun that is turned into lower frequency, infrared energy that is radiated back into the atmosphere.


Correct. It is visible & infrared light (overall emission spectrum of the Sun) which heats up ground/water, which re-radiates infrared.


Have the levels of infrared energy in whatever form, to earth, increased from the sun, in recent times???


No, on the last 30-50 years there is no clear trend in overall solar output, certainly not commensurate with changes in temperature.

It is hypothesized that changes in the Sun resulted in some of the observed warming in the early part of the 20th century.


IS the earth absorbing more electro magnetic energy????


Yes, if by "Earth" you mean 'the atmosphere'.

The upper atmosphere is growing more opaque to infrared radiation (greenhouse effect). This means that compared to before, more of the infrared which goes up from the surface is intercepted by the atmospheric gases. These gases then re-radiate back in all angles. Since some energy which was going out to space now will be going back down, the surface of the earth will be hotter than otherwise.

Simplest physically correct way to think about it: when you're at the surface of the earth, the electromagnetic energy which you feel is the E&M directly from the Sun (concentrated in visible) plus the infrared shining on you from the atmosphere. If you have more greenhouse gases then more infrared will be back-radiated, this second source becomes brighter, therefore the surface temperature will be higher than otherwise.

In a nutshell, the atmosphere shines brighter in infrared with an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Beware: there are numerous physically incorrect analogies in the popular press. It doesn't work like a greenhouse in which you grow tomatoes (that suppresses convective heat transfer primarily) or like a blanket.



Is the Earth magnetic field weakening to allow more absorption of electro magnetic energy?
The Earth's magnetic field is attributed to a dynamo effect of circulating electric current, but it is not constant in direction. Rock specimens of different age in similar locations have different directions of permanent magnetization. Evidence for 171 magnetic field reversals during the past 71 million years has been reported.


There's no known direct effect. If there is one, it would have to be very indirect, and quantitatively small.

By contrast, the increase in greenhouse-induced IR emission has been observed experimentally; it is a fact, not a hypothesis.



The $64,000 question. Were the Mayans onto something and the Dec 21 2012 winter solstice Galactic alignment, gonna turn this world on its head and reverse the poles?


No. There is no precise well-defined "alignment" of the galaxy as it is not a rigid body. And there is no physical effect. When you cross the equator on the equinoxes, the climate doesn't change to something bizzare at exactly 0 degrees. It's pretty much the same at +1 as -1.


Are recent events just precursors? Just wondering. Mister


Increases in greenhouse gases and russian fires are examples of effects which will continue to get worse.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by mbkennel]




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Great article and post!

I absolutely believe that the sun poses the greatest risk to our planet. People pay far too little attention to the larger cycle that we are apart of in this universe.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by slowisfast
I absolutely believe that the sun poses the greatest risk to our planet.


Greatest risk.

The Sun is far more beneficial than it is a risk. Without it, we, the Earth, the entire solar system! would not exist. It is one of the most important things in our lives.

The Sun is God.

Peace.

ALS

Edit: I say it is us who pose the greatest risk to our planet.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by ALOSTSOUL]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Thankx for responding Mbkennel. You have given me some things to ponder. I truly believe if you don't learn something everyday,that day was wasted.
I guess what I was kinda thinking, on a grand scale, that forces(magnetism,gravity etc) from outside of our solar system is effecting the Sun,thus the Earth,thus the climate and don't forget the geology. I got sidetracked on the Global warming thing ,good info by the way. Its not helping climate wise, but I don't see a relationship geologically. Geologically things are happening as well. Big Time. So I am still not convinced that outside forces aren't effecting the Suns properties and its output, in some way,thus the earth yada yada. I'll climb back in my guitar now. Mister



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL

Originally posted by slowisfast
I absolutely believe that the sun poses the greatest risk to our planet.


Greatest risk.

The Sun is far more beneficial than it is a risk. Without it, we, the Earth, the entire solar system! would not exist. It is one of the most important things in our lives.

The Sun is God.

Peace.

ALS

Edit: I say it is us who pose the greatest risk to our planet.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by ALOSTSOUL]


I completely agree. I believe there was a thread on here a couple years ago about how beneficial the sun is (besides making life possible). Next time you're feeling under the weather, take a step outside in the bright sun for thirty minutes or so...guarantee you'll feel at least a little better
...

Also, as you said ALS, we as humans do pose the greatest risk to our Earth.

More on topic, the Sun seems somewhat predictable as well as unpredictable. Your safest bet: wait and see.

Cheers,

AITM



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister1k
Thankx for responding Mbkennel. You have given me some things to ponder. I truly believe if you don't learn something everyday,that day was wasted.
I guess what I was kinda thinking, on a grand scale, that forces(magnetism,gravity etc) from outside of our solar system is effecting the Sun,thus the Earth,thus the climate and don't forget the geology. I got sidetracked on the Global warming thing ,good info by the way. Its not helping climate wise, but I don't see a relationship geologically.



Geologically things are happening as well. Big Time.

In geological time, yes. Far in the past the amount of volcanism was much higher at various times and it is hypothesized that this could have had strong effects on the climate.

In the current period of human civilization (last 10000 years) there has been no steady change, though occasional large eruptions have caused changes for a few months/years.


So I am still not convinced that outside forces aren't effecting the Suns properties and its output, in some way,thus the earth yada yada. I'll climb back in my guitar now. Mister


There are some fairly non-standard hypotheses about the role of cosmic rays in changing cloud cover. It's something interesting scientifically to look into, but it is not responsible for the latest climate change (this has been looked into quite seriously); changes in greenhouse gases explain the diversity of observations (much more than just global warming, specific patterns) more than every other explanation by far.

I'm glad you're thinking broadly, but don't underestimate the depth of thinking and serious investigation which has been doing on among planetary scientists for the last 75 years or so. They've though of quite a number of things, and investigated them with substantial rigor. We don't understand everything, but we definitely do not understand nothing.

Also, the further back in geological history, the less certain of course. That's because scientists have to make use of indirect proxy measurements which have their own difficulties. For the present day, we go out and directly observe with instruments, satellites, telescopes and balloons. Hence we can be very confident about what mechanisms are at play at current while the security of results for things far in the past is less certain.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


The ridiculous stance is to claim that CO2 has a mayor impact on climate... After all, even the cream of the crop couldn't provide evidence that supports your religion and they had to rig the data, write false information and passing it as the truth, they were caught talking baout using any legal, and illegal way to keep people in the dark even through the FOIA, etc...

Habibullo Abdussamatov is right... CO2 has LITTLE influence on the climate... But of course and like always when you, and the rest of the AGW believers can't discuss facts you have to make claims "such a person is an "oil kook"...

Tell you what, you are a leftwinger so we shouldn't believe you because of your political leaning...


You're still parroting that same old song??

First of all, THE HARD SCIENCE SAYS- if all the CO2 was removed from our atmosphere, the planet would be 60 degrees cooler. Which essentially means, NO MORE LIFE. Doesn't play a big part eh? TRY AGAIN.

You're obviously referring to the CRU emails, which have been PROVEN to not show any misconduct (even when the thousands of emails were analyzed by a CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST publication). They didn't hide any crucial data, and when they actually PUBLISHED, they hid NOTHING. If you read those emails with any sense in your head, you'd see a picture of a MAJORITY of climate scientists who are ripping their hair out over pseudo-scientists trying to sabotage their work without any hard evidence. What's also frustrating to scientists and myself is that the MAJORITY of deniers in the public sphere (whether in media, science, or politics) are found to have direct/indirect (and especially financial) ties to industry groups/think-tanks like Exxon, Western Fuels, Koch Industries, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Heartland Institute.

Seriously, if you deny the vast bulk of science, scientists, and respected scientific institutions which ALL confirm that global warming is real, man-made, and a serious problem... then I don't know what to tell you. You've fallen into a mindless paranoid chasm that no light of knowledge or rationality can reach. If I was religious I'd pray for you... but I'm not so I'll just consider you a goner.

Either DO YOUR HOMEWORK or stop fighting such a strong battle against people who know what they're talking about. Those are your options if you want to save yourself from being a fool.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wademus
christian or not, you should read revelations.

essentially a part says something to the effect of "the power of the sun is increased so as to scorch the earth and all that lives upon it" causing famine etc....

look at Russia, seeing record heat thats killing people, not a few years back it was france, not to mention all over the united states we are seeing high temps not just for a few days but for going on 2 months!


I truly wonder how many books have made predictions that people today could point towards a few isolated incidents and say "look here, so and so book was right!!" Not to mention some of the Mayan books that were burnt by some pretty crazy dudes, I forgot exactly who did that though. 2012 is an interesting topic, even for those who couldn't care less. I wonder if there's more to that story, or even new ones.

I hope you aren't one of those anti-2012 folks, (not saying I support it whatsoever) because this post would be extremely ironic.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Seriously, if you deny the vast bulk of science, scientists, and respected scientific institutions which ALL confirm that global warming is real, man-made, and a serious problem...


that's funny... and they are financed by who?

probably the same people that finance you




[edit on 12-8-2010 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Seriously, if you deny the vast bulk of science, scientists, and respected scientific institutions which ALL confirm that global warming is real, man-made, and a serious problem...


that's funny... and they are financed by who?

probably the same people that finance you




[edit on 12-8-2010 by donhuangenaro]

Us basically via taxes and governments for the most part. Now you can put your paranoid CO2 taxes hat on and look really foolish. Or you can face up to the fact the western governments make a fricking fortune in taxes from fossil fuels. IT IS NOT IN THE FINANCIAL INTEREST IN GOVERNMENT TO CUT BACK ON FOSSIL FUEL USAGE!!!! and yet they finance research which states that that needs to be done.

I'm afraid you have to look at the bigger picture which flies in the face of the paranoid conspiracy theorists, namely:governments do sometimes have their voters interests at heart. Survival in the face of human induced climate change being one of them.

Now if you take a careful look at the replies on this thread and you will notice something that very obvious:
A-Pro human warming replies with verifiable scientific analyses and references.
B-Anti human warming replies with no scientific backing just beliefs, feelings, assumptions and re-gurgitated theories that have been proved to be wrong.

We now jump into the minefield of cognitive dissonance and this is where no amount of verifiable proof will sway the incorrect beliefs.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Good find and good article. I'm not sure that this will be anything more than a hiccup, but as I'm neither a climatologist or astronomer I can't say that with anything more than a "huh?" But we'll see. Personally I hope we see an ice age. I hate the heat!




top topics



 
74
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join