PDA

View Full Version : The Sun



Articulate_Ape
04-24-2010, 07:05 PM
I ran across this video about the Sun's atmosphere (something that has always fascinated me) and found the sequence from 2:35 on REALLY interesting. It shows the Sun's activity from 1999 and on. While some scientists have postulated, and I think correctly, that any level of warming in the early 2000's was related to Sun activity (and conversely the offsetting cooling trend later on), I find it unconscionable that so called "climate science" chooses to utterly ignore this correlation. I know why they are doing it, mind you, but it is detestable.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmwL2cLgD4k

Big Guy
04-24-2010, 07:19 PM
I saw Bill Nye the Science Guy on TV talking about the first HD video of the sun.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/first-light.html

Articulate_Ape
04-24-2010, 07:24 PM
I saw Bill Nye the Science Guy on TV talking about the first HD video of the sun.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/first-light.html


Cool! Thanks, Big Guy!

FlaGator
04-24-2010, 11:48 PM
The sun is directly or indirectly responsible for every chemical reaction that goes on in the solar system. To unilaterally rule out it's culpability in global warming is at best asinine.

Articulate_Ape
04-25-2010, 12:54 AM
The sun is directly or indirectly responsible for every chemical reaction that goes on in the solar system. To unilaterally rule out it's culpability in global warming is at best asinine.

QFT

djones520
04-25-2010, 09:26 AM
I saw Bill Nye the Science Guy on TV talking about the first HD video of the sun.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/first-light.html

I also saw him debating for AGW not to long ago. It was sad because he was using arguments so lame I'd expect Wilbur to have done a better job at it then he did.

wilbur
04-25-2010, 10:54 AM
The sun is directly or indirectly responsible for every chemical reaction that goes on in the solar system. To unilaterally rule out it's culpability in global warming is at best asinine.

This just goes to show how naive you guys really are here - what on Earth would convince you that climate scientists unilaterally rule out the effects of the Sun on our global temperature? You, here, by yourself, sitting in your chair at home, had the brilliant idea to think about the sun, and believe that all the worlds climate scientists simply overlooked it?

Solar Variation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) is a huge area of interest in climate science.

Rockntractor
04-25-2010, 11:02 AM
This just goes to show how naive you guys really are here - bleat bleat bleat bah bah bah
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/sheep-1.jpg?t=1272207712

lacarnut
04-25-2010, 11:36 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/sheep-1.jpg?t=1272207712

Metrosexual Wilbur: sheepishly in stockings and high heels...gotta love it.

Articulate_Ape
04-25-2010, 01:26 PM
This just goes to show how naive you guys really are here - what on Earth would convince you that climate scientists unilaterally rule out the effects of the Sun on our global temperature? You, here, by yourself, sitting in your chair at home, had the brilliant idea to think about the sun, and believe that all the worlds climate scientists simply overlooked it?

Solar Variation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) is a huge area of interest in climate science.


Yet the "consensus" is that man warms the Earth more than the primary source of all energy in our solar system. They obviously aren't as interested in the Sun as they are in tenure and grant money.

wilbur
04-25-2010, 03:01 PM
Yet the "consensus" is that man warms the Earth more than the primary source of all energy in our solar system.


This sentence doesn't even make sense, since it is still the sun that warms the planet, even when we talk about global warming. CO2 just keeps more of the sun's energy in the atmosphere. The heat that we generate ourselves doesn't contribute anything significant to the global climate. Global warming is, quite literally, all about the sun.

And we have a pretty good idea how solar variation has contributed to the temperature trends in recent history, and it cannot account for the increased warming - so far, only an increase in the greenhouse effect can.

So the consensus is that solar variation cannot account for all of the warming in the 20th century, not that "man warms the planet more then the sun" (whatever that gibberish phrase is supposed to mean).


They obviously aren't as interested in the Sun as they are in tenure and grant money.

Yea, because grant money goes straight into those scientists' pockets :rolleyes:.. combined with their cushy academia salary (yea, right), they're all living the high life on your dime! Or not... academia is the place you go, if money is not your ambition.

Sonnabend
04-25-2010, 07:21 PM
Wilbur

What are your scientific qualifications?

Articulate_Ape
04-25-2010, 07:44 PM
This sentence doesn't even make sense, since it is still the sun that warms the planet, even when we talk about global warming. CO2 just keeps more of the sun's energy in the atmosphere. The heat that we generate ourselves doesn't contribute anything significant to the global climate. Global warming is, quite literally, all about the sun.

And we have a pretty good idea how solar variation has contributed to the temperature trends in recent history, and it cannot account for the increased warming - so far, only an increase in the greenhouse effect can.

So the consensus is that solar variation cannot account for all of the warming in the 20th century, not that "man warms the planet more then the sun" (whatever that gibberish phrase is supposed to mean).



Yea, because grant money goes straight into those scientists' pockets :rolleyes:.. combined with their cushy academia salary (yea, right), they're all living the high life on your dime! Or not... academia is the place you go, if money is not your ambition.



Do you know what the neat thing about reality is, Wilbur? It happens. Reality is happening and the Earth is cooling. Volcanoes, earthquakes. show the planet is alive and well and regulating itself. You and your equally arrogant pals on the Left may think mankind can change the planet, but you are dreaming. If and when Earth grows weary of us, it need only shrug and we will be gone forever.

wilbur
04-25-2010, 07:50 PM
Do you know what the neat thing about reality is, Wilbur? It happens. Reality is happening and the Earth is cooling.


You're basing this off what?



Volcanoes, earthquakes. show the planet is alive and well and regulating itself. You and your equally arrogant pals

I really do try not to be arrogant sometimes, but its kinda hard when someone says:

"Volcanoes and earthquakes, therefore no global warming!"

Cmon...

Rockntractor
04-25-2010, 08:19 PM
You're basing this off what?



I really do try not to be arrogant sometimes, but its kinda hard when someone says:

"Volcanoes and earthquakes, therefore no global warming!"

Cmon...

Wilbur if you want it to be warmer that bad just turn up your thermostat!:rolleyes:

FlaGator
04-25-2010, 08:22 PM
This just goes to show how naive you guys really are here - what on Earth would convince you that climate scientists unilaterally rule out the effects of the Sun on our global temperature? You, here, by yourself, sitting in your chair at home, had the brilliant idea to think about the sun, and believe that all the worlds climate scientists simply overlooked it?

Solar Variation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) is a huge area of interest in climate science.

So are you now saying that the sun is responsible for the recent warming and not warming trends as of late?

Articulate_Ape
04-25-2010, 08:54 PM
You're basing this off what?




Empirical evidence, Wilbur. Scientists whose tenure and living is on the line hardly trump what is actually happening. They can say "The emperor's new clothes look great" to get their paychecks, but the rest of us with no vested interest can see the emperor's balls; and they ain't pretty.

Sonnabend
04-25-2010, 08:55 PM
Wilbur

What are your scientific qualifications

wilbur
04-25-2010, 09:19 PM
So are you now saying that the sun is responsible for the recent warming and not warming trends as of late?

I'm not sure what you meant to say here... but I am saying that climate scientists, when investigating climate trends, absolutely do take into account solar variance.

FlaGator
04-25-2010, 09:21 PM
I thought this was interesting...


The case against AGW: Pluto's atmosphere


According to NASA, Hubble telescopic images of the Kuiper Belthttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/the_case_against_agw_plutos_at.html#) Object (formerly planet) Pluto showed marked atmospheric increase (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/14apr_molasses/) between 1994 and 2003:

"The data reveal an icy molasses-colored world with a surprising amount of activity. Buie compared Hubble images taken in 1994 vs. 2003 and discovered that Pluto's northern hemisphere has brightened while the southern hemisphere has dimmed. Ground-based observations suggest that Pluto's atmosphere doubled in mass during approximately the same time period. And no one is certain what's causing the molasses-colored splotches on Pluto's surface."

Now, why would the Plutonian atmosphere double? Solar driven global warming.

Granted, Pluto's year is 249 Earth years long, and it reached perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) September 5, 1989 (due to it's rather eccentric, or elongated, orbit Pluto was closer to the Sun than Neptune between 1979 and 1999) and so Pluto has been receiving more solar radiation, but it is interesting to note that Earth's temperature peaked during the same time period. A doubling of the Plutonian atmosphere during this same period clearly illustrates a warmer planetoid, in contradiction to what we have been told by climate alarmists. The claim that the Sun has little to do with planetary temperatures is clearly false when one considers the case of Pluto, at any rate.

It is also interesting to note that the atmospheric doubling occurred AFTER Pluto moved out beyond the orbit of Neptune; if this is purely seasonal, would not we have witnessed the thaw occurring BEFORE perihelion?

Either the Sun has minimal influence on planetary temperatures, or is a primary forcing (http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html). Pluto, like Mars, and Jupiterhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/the_case_against_agw_plutos_at.html#) and Neptune's moon Triton, suggests (along with common sense, that oft-neglected commodity) that the role of the Sun is being seriously neglected by advocates of anthropogenic global warming theory.

Perhaps one or two worlds exhibiting warming trends could be explained as coincidence, but too many coincidences form a pattern. But too much has been invested in the AGW theory to allow an inconvenient truth to stand in the way. This latest analysis of Pluto speaks volumes.

Story found here (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/the_case_against_agw_plutos_at.html)

FlaGator
04-25-2010, 09:24 PM
Oh... another


Without the impact of solar radiation, the temperature on the earth would be about the same as the temperature of space, which is about -454 F. The amount of radiation reaching the earth is about 1,368 watts per square meter. This is a vast amount of energy, which would require the simultaneous output of 1.7 billion of our largest power plants to match. About 70 percent of this solar energy is absorbed and 30 percent is reflected. However, the amount of solar energy reaching the earth is not constant, but varies in several independent cycles of different degrees of magnitude, which may or may not reinforce each other.

These cycles include a 100,000-year cycle, which results from the elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun, a 41,000-year (obliquity) cycle, which results from the tilt of the earth on its axis, a 23,000-year cycle which results from "climatic precession" or changes in direction of the earths axis relative to the sun, and an 11-year sunspot cycle, during which solar radiation increases and then declines. The most recent sunspot radiation cycle peaked in the year 2000, and currently is approaching a minimum. Curiously, NASA and the Russian Observatory both report that total solar radiation now has peaked, and all these cycles may be simultaneously in decline


Each 100,000-year peak in radiation appears to last about 15,000 to 20,000 years, and each has been coincident with massive surges of carbon dioxide and methane (the green house gasses), into the atmosphere, causing de-glaciation of the Polar and Greenland ice caps. Surges of these greenhouse gasses have always been vastly greater than the amounts currently being generated by burning fossil fuels. For example, the most recent 100,000-year cycle raised sea levels 400 feet in the first 10,000 years, but since then sea levels have risen very little. In the current warming period, sea levels are rising only about 3 millimeters per year, and temperatures over the last 100 years have risen a modest 0.6 of a degree C.

Superimposed on this latest 100,000-year peak have been 6 secondary warming periods, each coincident with additional surges of carbon dioxide and methane, lasting about 200 years and then subsiding. Each of these previous warming periods was warmer than the current warming period, and current temperatures are below the median for the last 3000 years. Most remarkably, civilization first emerged in the Tigris, Euphrates and Nile River Valleys about 3400 B.C. in that period of great warming, and even more remarkably, each of these secondary surges of greenhouse gasses (none of human origin), has also been coincident with the rise of a major civilization.

For instance, 3,000 years ago in the 1000 B.C. warming period, the Babylonian era emerged. Then, 500 years later, the Greek civilization flourished, followed by the Romans 400 years later. A 1,000-year cold period followed through the dark ages, but then in the very warm 1000 A.D. Medieval Period, the ice and snow melted on Greenland; the Danes farmed there for 200 years, until it froze over again. There are no reports of seaports being flooded during this warm period.


About 500 years after the Medieval period, another surge of greenhouse gasses initiated the Renaissance, which was followed by an unexplained "Little Ice Age" from about 1600 to about 1750. (This was coincident with the Maunder Solar Radiation Minimum). During this period, Europe was covered with ice and snow, growing seasons were short, and starvation was common. Farmer unrest may have triggered the French Revolution. The most recent warming period began as solar radiation rapidly increased.


Whole story here (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html)

Rockntractor
04-25-2010, 09:24 PM
I thought this was interesting...



Story found here (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/the_case_against_agw_plutos_at.html)
Well that ought to convince Wilbur! Now we can move on to something else.

FlaGator
04-25-2010, 09:28 PM
I'm not sure what you meant to say here... but I am saying that climate scientists, when investigating climate trends, absolutely do take into account solar variance.

I can't recall when, but at some point I had speculated based on articles that I read that Solar Radiation was the culprit in Global Warming and not the actions of man. You stated (correct me if I am wrong or misunderstood you) that solar radiation had little to do with the temperature increases that the earth was experiencing. It was man's emission of green house gases that were the leading cause.

Perhaps I misstated my premise in my original post but I believe that most of those reading it understand my intent and that your interpretation was more literal than it should have been.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-25-2010, 09:28 PM
I'm not sure what you meant to say here... but I am saying that climate scientists, when investigating climate trends, absolutely do take into account solar variance.


REAL scientists do, but the AGW crowd are not real scientists.

wilbur
04-25-2010, 09:36 PM
Empirical evidence, Wilbur. Scientists whose tenure and living is on the line hardly trump what is actually happening. They can say "The emperor's new clothes look great" to get their paychecks, but the rest of us with no vested interest can see the emperor's balls; and they ain't pretty.

Climate science is extremely important, and the demand for experts in the field will be growing regardless of whether or not global warming is happening. They would have their salaries and opportunities for tenure regardless - so that's really a non-starter as a plausible motive.

And just who are these 'vested interest free' people from whom you get your climate facts?

Sonnabend
04-25-2010, 10:26 PM
Wilbur

What are your scientific qualifications?

You pass yourself off as "an expert" so I ask the question again.

I will keep asking. The longer you ignore the question is proof you have no credibility.

So tell me.