It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Plus degrees in December (Polar night ends TWO DAYS early? )

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:00 PM
i would really like to know if this is really true. i can't find any info at all.... maybe no one other than a few sites like this one is saying anything in english? do i need to google in danish? LOL! i'm hoping someone can confirm that the polar nights did indeed end early. well, maybe i should hope it's NOT true and someone can confirm this is false info.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:02 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by OneisOne

Apparently the melting ice sheet lowers the horizon, hence the light is visible earlier then expected.


This is actually kind of a fun trigonometry/calculus problem. The earth is tilted 23.5 degrees with respect to its rotational axis. The result is that the sun effectively transits 47 degrees in the six months between the summer and winter solstices. That's 47 degrees in 182.62 days, or 0.257 degrees per day. Ilullisat is at 69°14′36″N latitude but it's acting as if it were at 69 degrees 00' latitude. At that latitude 1 degree is about 69 statute miles long, so two days worth is about 35 miles. To have that distance be the horizon works out to need an altitude change of 570'. The town is up a fjord on the west coast of Greenland and the sun would rise over the icecap to the east.The icecap is a mile and a quarter thick with an average altitude of about 6000 feet.

Nice logical approach with a small but important error.

The first sunrise and sunset a few seconds appart do not happen in the east, but due south.

As far as i can see in google maps, there are no icesheet to the south within 100 km,only a frozen fjord.

The distance to the horizon from 1000 meters above ground is about 100 km.

I doubt the ice melting idea has any validity.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:44 PM
Wow. Yet another "change." This is random, but haven't there been a whole lot of eclipses lately? This is cyclical over millennia, but still...other things are cyclical over millennia too...some not so pleasant, I've noticed the moon seems overall weird going on a couple of years now...seems to leap through phases and move faster, yes.

Also, as to the global warming misnomer...that was unfortunate and egocentric naming probably. Global climate change is more's a SHIFT. Places that were dry are wet...places that froze are warm...and vice versas to get the idea...

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:02 AM
The article isn't literally claiming the sun has physically arrived two days early. It isn't suggesting that the constellations have moved either. It's describing sunlight in the sky two days early. The article goes on to suggest a couple of possibilities from the melting ice shelf (mentioned by other posters) to ice crystals in the air reflecting sunlight.

They aren't saying that it was broad daylight, two days early, but a brightness in the sky like we get before sunrise.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:09 AM
With next year being a leap year, when we make a calendar adjustment, could that account for one of the two days? The time of the solstices and equinoxes do not occur on the same calendar each year. Could be someone forgot to take our 4th-year calendar adjustment into account?

Remember also that the millenium year we did not do the 100-year calendar adjustment where the leap year is left out. Could it be some old-timers used to seeing particular events occur on a given day of the year just not used to the currents adjustments? If what I suggest is a good possible cause I would like to consider that the explanation.

edit on 13-1-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:25 AM
reply to post by Kandinsky

I guess we can make light of it (as you appear to be doing) or...... read a lot more into it.

I'd say if the Sun's been rising....after a typical season of darkness...on Jan.13th for centuries (if not millennium) then one year it arose on the 11th instead..... I think I'd be a little alarmed too.

There's only so many things we can naturally count on, on planet Earth and THAT, would've been one of them (I'm pretty certain day-light savings time and leap year would've been worked out and factored in by now too).

edit on 13-1-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:38 AM
Let's not forget, our weather globally has been very very erratic.

Glacier melting/global warming is great (in a bad way) if that was happening throughout the planet. But Earth is not getting warmer it's getting extreme.

And what could help explain that? A polar shift. Either magnetically or physically.
The Sun just went through a complete magnet reversal (was it last year?) and now Earth looks like it's follow suit.
We also have warming on some of our other planets too.

A Pole Shift is predicted, has been predicted and continues to be predicted.
Think of you will.

Incidentally I hope my Australian friends are doing well.
Massive flooding and now, a typhoon!
Like I said, very extreme weather on planet Earth and I hope you stop buying into the entire global warming scandal because it's nonsense.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The article isn't literally claiming the sun has physically arrived two days early. It isn't suggesting that the constellations have moved either. It's describing sunlight in the sky two days early. The article goes on to suggest a couple of possibilities from the melting ice shelf (mentioned by other posters) to ice crystals in the air reflecting sunlight.

They aren't saying that it was broad daylight, two days early, but a brightness in the sky like we get before sunrise.

Correct, but it has to be something noticable that hasnt been seen before. The first thought I had was Mist, Fog, Ice crystals, any of the many weathers that can come with cold. The only problem I can see with this is, I'm certain the same weather patterns took place at various times, but as we are having more "odd" weather this year and to date, it continues, so it still seems possible that the weather could play a part.

Melting glaciers seems plausable also, but if there was no ice melt in that direction and it has been the same as before, it makes me curious as to what it could be.

Do we know wether the recent slight shift the earth field has something to do with this? As another poster mentioned, there could be forces outside our own itty bitty earth that could be at play. Perhaps the earth is gradually adjusting to the magnetic shift?

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:46 AM
May be it was not a sun.

Glen Kealey talks about Alderamin showing up. Some whistle-blowers (Charles interviewed by Bill 'Ryan) talk about twin star system we live in.

Just a thought.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Human_Alien

If Earth tilted, what would be the give-away? The location of the other stars/planets, right? But what if, there's a galactic event (yet known to modern man) where every satellite in a galaxy experiences change all at once?

Well the answer to that question is quite simple if you think about it. If the entire galaxy [actually it would have to be the entire universe since we can see other galaxies too with telescopes] moved then the earth would be moving with it, and......well it would have absolutally no effect on us at all. Nor could anyone tell. Its sort of like the question...what would happen if time ran backwards....The answer would be, that from our vantage point nothing would happen. Our brains patterns would all be running backwards....our consciousness would in essence be running backwards....Time could be running backwards as we speak. Not to mention the entire Universe could be spinning like a top right now and we would never know it. As for the Sun rising too early....I read the articles, and a close reading suggests that they never said that. They only said that LIGHT was peaking over the horizon when it normally doesn't . therefore their explanation on Global Warming [or call it Climate Change which I think is more accurate a description] actually makes quite a bit of sense since air under such conditions as they described could indeed refract light differently, making light that is normally just out of view peak over a bit. I think perhaps you were confused by the one article that was translated a bit poorly by the automatic translater.
edit on 13-1-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: I accidentally hit send before I wrote anything!!! Dough!!!! LOL!

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:49 AM
How the hell are they making the correlation between GW and the time the sun rises? Too me that suggests that the temp of the planet dictates when the sun rises and when it doesnt.

Am i the only one here who thinks thee scientists either have no idea what is happening or have been told to say what they have to confuse the masses

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:37 AM
reply to post by Human_Alien

Maybe the "pole shifting" event that has been going on is causing the earth to tilt slghtly more on its axis prior to the eventual cataclysmic "flip" that is bound to happen if pole shifting is true. Does anyone know how to survive a pole shift on ATS?

I am thinking maybe a seatbelt on the floor and staple pillows to the ceiling directly above me? lol any better ideas?

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:31 AM
I wonder if this phenomena can be explained by a particularly fast form of post glacial rebound?

It is quite well recorded that the earth's crust is deformed by the weight of ice that forms the artic ice sheets. When that ice melts the ice sheet becomes lighter and the land mass upon which it rests rises up again. A good article on this which also considers local gravitational effects of the ice masses on sea levels can be read here.

On the other hand, those effects usually occur over geological time scales. The idea that the land mass of Greenland could rise enough to make the sun appear two days early stretches the imagination.

Edit: From wikipedia article:

tudies have shown that the uplift has taken place in two distinct stages. The initial uplift following deglaciation was rapid (called "elastic"), and took place as the ice was being unloaded. After this "elastic" phase, uplift proceeded by "slow viscous flow" so the rate decreased exponentially after that.

Maybe this is the rapid "elastic" rebound taking place?

edit on 13-1-2011 by Crayfish because: Added quote from wikipedia

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:33 AM
reply to post by fonenyc

"Pole shift" refers to a shift in magnetic poles, not to a geophysical shift. In other words: the planet won't suddenly topple upside down, rather the polarity of the Earth's core changes so that compasses will slowly start pointing east (if the magnetic north pole keeps traveling in it's current direction). If the pole shift is sudden it is my understanding that the strength of the magnetic field protecting us from the Suns lethal rays will diminish. To survive this I'd suggest staying away from mountain peaks and perhaps install lead panels on your roof and stock up on sunscreen.

About the polar night: isn't it true that the Earth isn't an exact sphere, meaning that the planet bulges at the equator and flattens near the poles? Now, couldn't the changes in the Earths core that are causing the magnetic changes (as detailed in this National Geographic article from dec 2009) affect the bulge of the Earth at the poles?

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:41 AM

Originally posted by OneisOne

Originally posted by tarifa37
How can it be due to the ice sheet melting?
edit on 12-1-2011 by tarifa37 because: (no reason given)

Apparently the melting ice sheet lowers the horizon, hence the light is visible earlier then expected.

From the translated page:

Thomas Posch from the Institute for Astronomy, University of Vienna completed astronomical reasons for the premature end of the polar night also made. He suggests that the observation is due to a change in the local horizon. An accelerated by the melting of the Greenland ice sheet of lower horizon appears as "by far the most obvious" explanation.

Just to put this into some perspective Alaska's longest night lasts 67 days. If there is a change of two days then that is a change of (2/67=0.0299) .0299% .

If this happened on the equator where the night lasts about 12 hours then that would equate to a change of (0.0299x12hr) 0.358hr's or 21 minutes. So the sun would rise 21 minutes early (on the equator). (I believe all the math and numbers are right. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)

hrmm. The lowering of the horizon could account for that. but it does seem to be a massive change.

edit on 13-1-2011 by AeonStorm because: Addidtional Info

edit on 13-1-2011 by AeonStorm because: ^^

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:42 AM
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

No, not ONLY a change in ground level or elevation. But that is one possibility, and probably the most reasonable. Think of a tall woman with big hair sitting in front of you in a theater. You can't see the screen. But if she slouches down or you stand up - AHA - there is the screen. People think of Greenland as this big flat island covered with snow. It's not. It is mountainous with a huge 6000 to f7000 foot thick ice cap covering 80% of it.

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:57 AM
Here is something to think about and no im not a 2012 fear crazed person

But if in one year the sun can rise almost 2 days early, well then it does not seem that impossible that in another year it could rise about 20 days earlier... and that would be 2012 21st December

A little to close for comfort even for a non believer in 2012 dooms day predictions.

However maybe someone that has done a lot of research on 2012 can put 2 and 2 together and see if they can predict how the Mayans would have noticed this change and what they would be trying to warn us about?

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:58 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

haha, thanks for that. A rose by any other name.....still found it interesting in that article that the ONLY reason behind possibly changing the name to 'Climate Challenges' was to make primary producers / farmers change their attitudes towards 'human induced climate change'.....funny that!!

Might have to brainstorm this a bit.......oh wait, we can't use that term either anymore!!!

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:12 AM
i guess there's no one on the forum from greenland who can actually confirm that the report is true........

i would think (if it's true) that it would HAVE to be due to ice melt because otherwise it would be more than just greenland seeing a difference. has there been a difference anywhere else of the sun rising earlier or later (significantly - as in more than 5 minutes off normal sunrise/set)? i think we'd be hearing about it... so i'm thinking a LOT of ice melt IF the report is even true.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in