E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory has captured what appears to be a disturbance in the force - on the sun. Astronomers say Sunday morning's eruption sent out a blast of electrically charged particles that should create brilliant auroral displays on Tuesday night.
"This eruption is directed right at us, and is expected to get here early in the day on August 4th," astronomer Leon Golub said in a statement from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "It's the first major Earth-directed eruption in quite some time."
Fortunately, it's not all that big of an eruption: The X-ray blast rated a C3 on the Space Weather Prediction Center's scale, which suggests there'll be no disruption for power grids, satellites, astronauts on the International Space Station or navigation services on airplanes. Stronger space storms can have more serious impacts. In 1989, for example, a huge solar outburst sparked a nine-hour electrical blackout in Quebec - and a more moderate blast that occurred in April apparently turned a telecom satellite into a zombie.
The biggest impact from Sunday's solar storm is expected to be that killer light show: Observers in the northern tier of the United States and similar latitudes should be on the watch for rippling waves of reddish or greenish light in the night sky. And who knows? The northern lights have been known to dip down to Colorado or even farther south on occasion.
Such displays are caused by the interaction between solar particles and Earth's own magnetic field. It's hard to predict exactly when the wave will hit - but you'll maximize your chances of seeing something by getting far away from city lights and having a clear view to the north.
The sun is coming off a low in its 11-year activity cycle, and Sunday's eruption serves as another sign that things are finally picking up. SpaceWeather.com says the event apparently started with a flare from a site known as sunspot 1092, the only significant sunspot group currently facing Earth. At about the same time, the observatory detected a huge magnetic filament of material rising up from the sun's northern hemisphere.
It's not rock-solid certain that there's a connection between the flare and the filament, which were separated by 400,000 miles. But It looks as if a "solar tsunami" swept across the sun's surface from the flare site toward the filament zone, propelling the hot stuff into space.
"In short, we have just witnessed a complex global eruption involving almost the entire Earth-facing side of the sun," SpaceWeather.com's Tony Phillips said.
Is this the start of something big? Some doomsayers are worried that the sun is on schedule for a 2012 (or 2013) apocalypse - but all the signs so far is that our nearest star is in the midst of a thoroughly normal cycle. As the sun heads toward Solar Max, you can expect the potential for disruption, as well as the potential for harmless light shows like the one some folks will see Tuesday night. Keep watch on these sites for all the sights:
- NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory website
- Video of the Aug. 1 eruption from SpaceWeather.com
- Video and stills of the flare-up from the Center for Astrophysics
- More pictures of the sun from SpaceWeather Flash
- Views from space on Twitpic, courtesy of Astro_Wheels
I provide a short snippet of commentary on the eruption in this msnbc.com video. Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
I will be up to watch this aurora. I can't wait to read all the 2012 stuff that pops up whenever there's a story like this. I don't personally believe any of it, but it sure is interesting. and someone always has a new nugget of info (new to me that is). Thanks Alan for the heads up on the aurora. :-)
LOL (heads up - aurora - I slay me. )
WHERE?
Are you saying a consistent and measurable increase in the earths temperature is responsible for AGW?e
Are you also saying that this one solar storm is responsible for the already record high global avergae temperature?
How is a solar storm effect the amount of Carbon Dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc... in the atmosphere?
Please explain, because it is my understanding that the sun cycles about every 11 years in its "storming" but the temperature has been consistently rising for about 100?
Also, don't forget to mention your credentials, because belief is for Santa Clause and Jesus, I work in evidence.
If you don't understand scientific processes, please stick to the entertainment section and leave the science to the scientists and those of us with enough understanding to be worried.
Political posturing has no place in scientific debate, except when it comes to financing and public safety, unfortunately.
Thanks for the opinion, CO2 does have an effect on temperature and is an great example of the sensitivity of our climate to changes outside of natural phenomena.
So you're saying there is something going on with our orbital inclination and rotation right now? Please link that...
CO2 is a trailing indicator of climate warming not a leading indicator or first it gets warm then CO2 levels rise not the other way around.
Thats poor work to use wikipedia as a source. Any English 101 teacher will tell you that.
Not true Bruce,
But a common misconception
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
@gaetanomarano - you should read your own source a little more closely. It does not state that Greenland was ever free of glaciers. How else could they get ice cores that date back about 100,000 years?
I hear alot of green people mainly the (left) saying the sun is not the cause for record breaking heat waves. But even if you look at MSNBC wether page and look at the weather chart for your area it give you a monthly average of percipitation. Also as you click on the monthly average it also gives you the record highs and lows temp. Most of the record highs and lows are so spread out from 1920 to current even a 3rd grader can tell that all temp. are not dependant on man made effects. For example the record high for MAY was set back in 1939 at 97 degrees the low was 29 deg set in 1929 these are the stats for my state.. IF these temps were man would not all of them be more recent? As of yet I have not seen one record set for my state in the last 8 years. OR could it be due each state has it's own sun and the number of people in each state contribute that states gloabl warming? NOT! Other wise it would be stae warming not Global warming. The sun has everything to do with our climate. Man has contributed only.000001 to the overall situation. But keep buying your electric cars and I'll keep buying my V8 chevy and when a deer jumps out on to the raod or a drunk swirves into my lane in his plastic car I'll know my family is safe. and we will more than likley walk away from the inccident.
Like any person should, I have formed my opinion on Global Warming by looking at facts gathered by individuals who fall on both sides of the political spectrum and formed my own opinion based on these facts.
I have a very hard time believing in global warming based on science projections for the simple reason that their data set is too small. The earth is millions of years old. There is scientific evidence that the earth, sun, and solar system cycles. Tempature has been recorded on a consistent and accurate basis for maybe 60 years. To make any sort of prediction based on a 60 year data set, when "weather" has occured for millions of years is very inaccurate.
To put it in perspective. Take the following "scientific projection:" Yesterday was 72 degrees and today is 73 degrees. That must mean that 20 days it will be 93 degrees. As foolish as that sounds, the 60 year data set is even a worse data set compared to the 2 days in the example above.
@gaetanomarano
Sorry, your response made absolutely no sense to me. What are you trying to say?
That the global warming/climate change has happened in the past naturally? Sure it has.
That it has had no impact on the existing life? Sure it did.
That just because it can and has happened naturally before means that man can't possibly be causing it now? Ridiculous.
That what scientists claim is the same thing seen in current disaster movies? Also ridiculous.
And how does any of what you said account for the fact that you are misinterpreting your own source?
Mark Brown - Why worry, if that sun blows you have about 8 minutes to put your head between your legs and kiss your a$$ Good-bye. Don't WORRY about sometning you have no control over what-so-ever.
Funny thing Mob Barley, here we are talking about the Sun and Bob Marley was killed by the Sun, he died of Malignant Melanoma that metastasized to his brain. Ironic.
@gaetanomarano
Why do you keep changing what you say and implying that I said it? You stated "WITHOUT consequences for the Earth and for its life forms". I pointed out that this is wrong and you go on to argue that I said something else.
What scientist is saying any of this is causing 'the end of the world'? Again, you are sensationalizing what science is stating. It's a red herring. Try arguing against the facts.
As for your Greenland argument, go back and reread your source - you are misinterpreting the information. Greenland still had a massive ice sheet when it was discovered. Current climate change is causing severe reduction of that ice sheet on a scale that exceeds what happened in the middle ages.To equate the same level of warming that scientists are predicting to earth's history, you must look back hundreds of thousands of years and possibly more (I.e. before the current ice sheets existed).
So I must ask you again, why are you avoiding the fact that you are not accurately representing your own source?
BTW - Earth's precession (which I think you are referring to earlier) does not occur on a fast enough time scale to account for current climatic trends.
@gaetanomarano
Sure, it can change ecosystems. Many species will thrive and many will not. Coastlines will change. Some areas that used to be fertile could turn to desert. Some desert areas could flood. The point is is that it will cause major disruptions that, if steps are taken now to correct it, can be avoided and at a significantly reduced cost than adapting to it in the future. Saying that the 'world will end' indicates that there is no way we can survive so why bother trying. Again, it's sensationalist. It does not address the actual problem and is therefore useless. You are trying to use it in an all or nothing scenario (either the world will be devastated or everything will be rosy). That is fractally wrong.
Get your facts straight. Most climatologists say global warming is occurring and that it is man made. It is a statistically big change on a short time frame. So why are you even throwing out an explanation that you admit takes too long to produce the current climate trends?
Overall - you are trying to argue that climate change is not happening and that it is not caused by man. The second argument contradicts the first. Either admit that it is happening and then offer your evidence for the natural causes for it, or drop all your arguments for natural causes since they don't matter to your argument in the first place. Either way, pick one and stick with it.
Again you go with the all or nothing argument...flat out wrong.
Here's another alternative - we can trust that the climatologists know what they are talking about since they are the experts and start making changes to mitigate further problems. If you don't like that option or don't want to trust experts, become an expert yourself, find actual evidence to support your hypothesis, and then make your recommendations. Stop making arguments based on flimsy understandings of physical processes and flat out bad syllogism.
That'd be awesome if the northern lights were visible down here in Iowa! My family and i were in Minnesota one time when the lights were going, and they let me sleep through it! I still give them a hard time about it....
gaetanomarano You should make a point to differentiate between Global warming and Man made global warming because Global warming is happening (just look at all the melting glaciers) to say global warming isnt happening is a joke as it is clearly happening. Now man made global warming is a different subject . I am sure we are contributing but I doubt it is as big of a factor as we think. We, us humans havent been on the planet long enough and recorded enough of the planets climate history to be able to accurately say for sure if we are having a huge effect on the Earth’s climate.
The other subject the End of the world should be restated the end of humanity; the world will go on fine without us should humanity disappear from the face of the earth. The world will end (as in the destruction of the planet) but that wont happen for another 4-5 billion years when the sun goes Red Giant and swallows the Earth.
So disappearing glaciers and ice caps the acceleration of those glaciers and ice caps melting are not proof that the planet is warming up? That seem like hard evidence to me that global warming is happening.
What people need to ask is how much of this warming factor is due to man.
I completely agree that the burden of proof is upon those making the claim. And, as for global warming, the consensus among climatologists is that it has been substantially supported by the evidence. I.e. the proof has been made. What is now being debated among climatologists is the speed and magnitude at which those changes will occur.
However, you keep jumping back and forth stating that global warming doesn't exist and that it is not man made. By doing this, you are now also making specific claims that you must support. It is an inherently illogical position to hold both of those. If you are going to argue a point, pick one and stick to it. Then use actual facts to support your position. This also means that when a you present an argument that is refuted, you must either drop that argument, or show how the refutation is incorrect. I.e. your Greenland argument.
gaetanomarano what do you mean irreversible effects to the planet. Global warming isnt irreversible, nature has proven that. Man could if given enough reason to develop technology to sequester Co2 and other greenhouse gasses to help in lowering the temperature.
I think you were referring to the consequences of not doing anything about global warming, such as rising sea levels and disappearing coastlines and land.
As for oil we will not run out of it for any foreseeable future, there are endless reserves in the ocean, as for existing wells they are not empty, they still have more oil in them then has been pumped out, what is going to disappear is easily extractable oil. One an oil well gets emptied to a certain point it costs more and more money to try to extract the oil in the well because the pressure in the oil well decreases as more and more oil is extracted.
You do realize that simply saying global warming doesn't exist over and over doesn't make it so? Again, climatologists have established it does exist. They have presented their evidence.
To say that we have to watch what happens for the next 50 years before we can say what will happen is ridiculous. It's on par to saying that the only way we can say that the African and South American continents are drifting apart is to measure the distance between them for the next few thousand years.
And on top of that now you're stating that you alone can make claims without supporting them? That is also ridiculous.
BTW - UFO's do exist. All UFO means is that it is an unidentified flying object. It doesn't have to be alien or supernatural in nature, just unidentified. A bird can qualify as a UFO it is not identified to be a bird.
On top of it all, you came on here making claims about global warming on an article that had nothing to do with climate change. Then you began throwing out all these arguments which have nothing to do with current climate trends. When you were challenged on your arguments, you don't defend them, rather you jump around throwing out other claims and then state that global warming doesn't exist - completely opposite of what you started with. Finally, when you realize your arguments are not working, you end up repeating the same mantra over and over in some vague attempt that repetition will make it true, and then claim that we started this argument when we are merely debunking what you are stating.
You made a claim. You tried to support it. It was rebutted. You didn't drop the claim or refute the rebuttal, rather you start throwing out all the other junk you could think of and then try to shift the burden.
Overall, a very sloppy argument followed with a weak attempt to back out.
Gaetanomarano, You need to do more research, your denial of Global warming is a joke, since you like to refer to Wiki here is your some proof of global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
Now as I said previously but which I don’t think you noticed, the real question isn’t IF global warming ishappening, because it is. The real question is how much has mans activity contributed to this global warming if any.
You can deny Global warming is happening till you are blue in the face but the fact is we have a historical track record of melting glaciers and ice caps. Decades of proof, what happens 50 years into the future doesn’t mean squat in relation to the current Global Warming trend. The trend of global warming is continuing, will it be reversed that is what we don’t know.
Is man a direct link in the current Global Warming process, this is also something we need to determine what percentage of this is attributed to man.
Also, in relation to oil I did take into consideration all developing countries, The ocean is BIG, you do realize the billions of years of dead sea life, plankton, protozoa, and other seas creatures that fall to the ocean floor and are compacted and go thru the process of getting turned into oil, There are more reserves of oil in the ocean then on land.
You do understand the process of extracting oil? Once the pressure of the compressed oil is reduced it gets harder to extract it, that doesn’t mean we run out of oil. We will never run out of oil but it will eventually become too costly to extract. That is a big difference between running out of oil and it becoming too costly to extract.
Increase in the earths temp over a short timeframe and global warming are two different things, but increase in the global temp over 160 years which is causing the glaciers and ice camps to disappear of melt at an ever increasing rate is hard cold Proof that the planet is warming up over a long period of time.
This is Global warming 160 years of data is your proof, what happens 50 years from now doesnt negate the fact that glohbal warming is happening right now.
What the end result will be doesnt mean anything in relation to the fact that global warming is happening now. From the data we have now if things continue as they are there will be a catastrophe in the future.
This is what point I am trying to make, your are in firm denial that Global warming is happening, you think it is a myth and fantasy but the cold hard data is there.
Now what we dont know is if this is just a natural process of the earth, or if man has a part in it. I dont doubt man has had an effect, but I am a serious doubter that it is that much of an effect.
For you, Mr. Barley :-D
http://instantrimshot.com/
Science is a self supporting investigation process that gives structure and beauty to the universe. It is not about picking up things right and left to support your own pet theories. Likewise, Creationism is not science, it's about a bunch of people telling God how and when he should have created the universe. Science does not tell God what he should have done, it's only concerned in finding out how HE did it.
"God" is what we humans created for many reasons, therefore we are "God." Science is an un-biased, non-religiously driven search for understanding and solid truth.
I agree! I don't personnally believe in God. But, those who do believe should understand that God and science are not mutually exclusive as so many wants them to think. Whether we believe in God or not is irrelevant in the end. We have a brain powerful enough to try understand what goes on around us, so let's use it and see wherever it will take us.
When humankind can harmonize its spiritual beliefs with the scientific method, we will enter a "golden age." This means going beyond the God of religion, or the God of reason and logic, toward a much deeper relationship with the God who is the ground of being. This means understanding that consciousness precedes matter.
Prince!
It has been done already. Nearly all the great inventions and discoveries of humanity from Galileo to Einstein and beyond were made by people who believed in God, and there were many monks and religious people among them. That's clearly not where the problem is but rather with those who fear a loss of influence over the many. All they want is to control people with fear of sin and God and eternal damnation. As I said already, the concept of God is not incompatible with science, but organized religion is. As for consciousness, it needs matter to be expressed. Without it, everything is meaningless. Eternity itself can only be conceived as now forever, whitout past or future. Only intelligent beings can measure time and space. My cats have consciousness of some sort but they don't know if we are in 2010 or 1750 or 3000 BC. In a way, we are God, because the consciousness you speak of can only exist through what we see, what we hear, what we feel, what we smell and what we taste and finally, how we put it all together. :)
I was expecting a meteor but all is fair...
I was expecting a meteor but all is fair...
We're all gonna die!
That's the safest bet, Scott, you will ever make!! It's just a question of time!
Okay everybody, get ready to rant. W.F.Gottschalk - not necessarily TRUE, we ALL won't necessarily die. The Bible says that when the Lord returns the second time that the dead in him shall rise first to meet him in the air and then the living in him shall also rise up to meet him in the air, so believers who are alive when he returns will NOT die, they will be transformed instantly.
Beam me up Scotty, I mean Lord.
Good one Pirate C, at least one person has a little humor and is not all uptight on these vines. Peace.
I would hope the soho et all will provide more data!!, this is a lot of energy, the x-rays will be absorbed by the atmosphere, and much of the gamma rays, all the self centered types that jump the inquisitive are effectively screaming the sky is falling, it aint, when mother earth gets tired of us, the ride is over for us...not mother earth...back to the science, I gather the cme will not hit us from a direct path from the sun, is it that a magnetic field bourne of the earth is entwined with said same of sol that provides a conduction path for the cme to follow?..if that is so, do we have like magnetic affiliations with the other planets, Jup, Sat, Mars?...will we see a side effect where, like transformers in series, the energy flows from planet to planet? and for my own satisfaction, are there any links to serious dissertations on such energy transference?..I know the carbon coupon folks only want to believe that man and man alone can heat the universe with gorrish hot air but surely there has been a lot of work on how far the energy transference can go in our solar system, AND hopefully some initial stabs at quantifying the interplanetary effect...in essence what I am looking for is not the delta t of earth from this event, but it's subsequent effect on the rest of the planets....and lastly, how often do mercury and venus get whacked with a cme?...are we just in a bad position with a favorable magnetic field or does earth in it's own right act as a sort of xformer, yielding a magnetic negative potential that trickles in from beyond the ibex ribbon???....just wondering....after all, who killed the kennedys, it was you and me!!
Is it me or does anyone else have trouble understanding what the heck ray is talking about? I see a lot of big words strung together in one gigantic paragraph. Less rambling and more white space, please?
-45 deg w is a good position for the average cme to affect Earth. The stronger the flare the closer to central meridian it can be to affect Earth.
-the convention for solar disk directions is west to the right. This flare looks like it's 45 east but you're never really sure when looking at a media photo of the sun.
-I think LBJ had JFK done. Who knows about RFK? (the only reason I 'replied' was so I could get my LBJ theory in....)
xscharm: Naw, Oswald did it alone.
Federal Reserve Banks did it, Kennedy was going to disolve the FED.
I'm looking forward to tonight to see some auroral displays, we got them in august 2000 for two or 3 days but I lived in the city, now I live in the country & all I need tonight is clear sky's a hot flask of coffee and a camera.
agwteacher I Appreciate your strong political opinions & belief on "AGW", It suggests to me that you are close-minded on the subject, (a very unscientific trite for a person who claims to work in evidence).
Fact: The atmosphere consists of "about" 78% nitrogen, about 21% oxygen, about 0.9% argon & about 0.04% carbon dioxide. Traces of neon, hydrogen, helium, ozone, methane, & nitrogen oxides are also present.
Which of these gasses would you say life on Earth produces more of "into" the atmosphere? And which of these gasses would you say life on Earth Removes more of "from" the atmosphere?
Here's a Fun Fact: Did you know that Termites produce more methane than cows.
The large increase in the Mediterranean Sea indicates excess Billions of BTU's have been recently stored in that massive waterway raising the water's temperature in an alarming rate. The point being a huge amount of Solar energy is striking the earth. The Earth has recently left it's most recent Ice Age and quickly went from Global Warming to now Global Heating. American taxpayers bled the hundreds of Billions of taxpayer dollars to supply NASA and NOAA the satellites and many of the worldwide sensors and temperature stations. The Shadow Government in America certainly knows what is going on and pouring into the Earth's mantle, but are largely silent to the American public. Here comes the Sun? It's evident the Sun has been belting the earth with a abnormal amount of energy be it UV and IR rays. I guess the world will have to depend on wikileaks to tell the American public what is going on.
im scared!!
I'm not the brightest crayon in the box....but, I do think there are w-a-y more forces, ripple effects, etc. in everything that happens on Earth and in space than we understand. Earth will continue it's travel through space, we are just along for the ride. I've not seen anyone address the issue of where we are headed in space.
I have heard that "spaceship" Earth is headed for the same region of the galaxy that 65 million years ago ushered in the demise of the dinosaurs...the largest animal on the planet at the time. I have heard this area is dangerous, and is known for more intense electromagnetic radiation, along with asteroids, etc. How does increased electromagnetic radiation affect the sun??? Does it make it "burn" hotter??? Does it cause there to be more solar flares??? I know the accepted reason for the demise of the large animal life on Earth 65 million years ago is the impact of an asteriod...but, could it have been the effect from a large solar flare instead/also? The carbon make-up of oil suggests animals & plants were buried and compressed for a long period of time until they became the black gold we so depend on. Didn't the ingredients (plants & animals) have to become available at pretty much the same time, and in huge quantities? Seems like for this to happen, a mass extinction of this magnitude would be a grand comsic event, perhaps more than an asteriod by itself.
Look up the Butterfly Effect (not the horrible movie, the climate theory) and Chaos theory.
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Just not at the same time....
I'm hot!
Ha!! The earth has been having these types of events happen to it for longer than anyone can even concieve. Cooling and warming happen natrually, and no, man isn't the cause this time around either. The wobble of the earths axis and eliptical shape of orbit change, and run in cycles. Can anyone explain why some glaciers are receding and revealing dense piles of timber? Oh wait, i just did. These timbers are huge and had to have been hundreds of years old, so yes, unless the seperation of the continents was instant, causing ice to cover forrests in glaciers that were recently warm enough to support a forrest. Or the Earths Axis flipped 90 degrees all of a sudden. Or what i said about the whole eliptical cycles and tilting cycles of the earths axis cause it. In case you just think I'm some kind of crackpot, because Al Gore and Bono would never ever lie, LOL! sorry. http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes08.jsp
What a bunch of self righteous know it alls. Someone makes an incorrect statement and every sudo-scientist awake this morning, and I suspect some still asleep, come here to bash someones limited knowledge. Lighten up folksIt's not the inqusition....... or is it and I've just been asleep?
There were a lot of inquisitions, the most infamous being the Spanish I suspect. The one most familiar to me was the Roman inquisition that Galileo ran a fowl of. If I have it correct, and I welcome corrections, in an inquisition the prosecution, the judge and jury are the same entity, also the target had no one to help in his defense making an inquisition a formal sort of mob rule. Mob rule is also what apparently governs most of the discussions that take place on NewVine.
As far as solar flares and global warming are concerned, it is true that the energy from the sun is the primary force that regulates the temperature of the planets. It is also true that without CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere the earth would still be frozen like it was for a few billion years. As I understand it, it was vulcanism that put enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to thaw the earth while chloroplasts of plant life removed excess CO2 by changing it to hydrocarbons which we are now digging up and burning, dumping the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Al Gore is on very solid ground sounding the alarm of Global Warming and badmouthing him will not change the chemistry and physics of human activity on our planet.
It's Pseudo-Scientist ;-)
elentir - was JUST going to mention that .
AGW, if humans are so responsible for warming, explain why the earths average temp was NINE DEGREES WARMER 130,000 years ago . It's in the ice core record.
What the GW fanatics always ignore is that the ONE degree of warming we have had since 1750 disappears if you start at 1700. Using that date, we are actually cooler on average.
Also, global inclination DOES have an effect on temperature- that is why it is warmer in the summer in NA, and cooler in the winter. You should know this. Grade school kids do.
Global Warming. Ok all you supposed scientific wonders. We have been told and shown images of the decrease of the ice-cap in the Artic. We have also seen an increase in the Anartic. We know or have been told that when the tsunami hit Asia a couple of years ago that the earthquake that caused it altered the axis of the earth. Slightly of course but, hey this is a big earth. We also know the the volcano that erupted in Iceland released more Carbon gases than mankind can release in hundreds of years. Is it possible that as that lava was moving to the surface for the eruption it could have been an attributing factor in that decrease in the ice-cap? Could the alteration of the earths axis also be a factor? And last explain how that fits into the whole global warming phenom being man made.
you people watch to many movies! get a life please before you scare each other into into a tizzy. also all you scientific people out please learn how to use spell check on you comment and some of you even claim to be teachers.
Funny coming from a person who is committing grammatical errors. The man in the glass house shouldn't be the first to cast stones.
You people watch too many movies! Get a life, please, before you scare each other into into a tizzy. Also, all you scientific people out there, please learn how to use spell check on your comment. And some of you even claim to be teachers.
Spell check won't help your kind of stupid.
There were a lot of inquisitions, the most infamous being the Spanish I suspect. The one most familiar to me was the Roman inquisition that Galileo ran a fowl of. If I have it correct, and I welcome corrections, in an inquisition the prosecution, the judge and jury are the same entity, also the target had no one to help in his defense making an inquisition a formal sort of mob rule. Mob rule is also what apparently governs most of the discussions that take place on NewVine.
As far as solar flares and global warming are concerned, it is true that the energy from the sun is the primary force that regulates the temperature of the planets. It is also true that without CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere the earth would still be frozen like it was for a few billion years. As I understand it, it was vulcanism that put enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to thaw the earth while chloroplasts of plant life removed excess CO2 by changing it to hydrocarbons which we are now digging up and burning, dumping the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Al Gore is on very solid ground sounding the alarm of Global Warming and badmouthing him will not change the chemistry and physics of human activity on our planet.
Sorry for the second posting, I ran afoul of Windows 7
Bad mouthing Gore? I didn't see anyone bad mouth him. He's a lying politician, it's what they do. Now with that said, he's the guy screaming the most and his carbon footprint is larger than most small towns, not to mention mining rights he sold for his zinc mine that were pumping tons of pollutants into nearby waterways. He's a hypocrite, do as i say, not as i do. The point is, Human activity has an insignificant impact on global warming compared to the Earths own orbit and tilt. Rising CO2 levels do not seem to impact temp historically speaking. Here is the history of cycles of the earths temp and CO2 levels. http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical02.jsp
are you sure Erik the Red wasn't banished to the sun for a killing...it looks Red....
why do I have to goto Wiki about Greenland when the the pic is of the sun...you guys took this all off course we will be back around this spot next year right?
you science guys suck.. I got a 4.0 in physics at MSU and dropped out for 100k a year fixing basements...
this guy is saying Greenland was grass then became an glacier...this may correspond...some religous fanatics said a warlock type was freezing the earth around 1000-1500 ad and forces were sent to defeat him..
Also do you know our government crossed human dna with bat dna for radar type senses in an underground lab in New Mexico?
shoulda sent Erik the Red there huh?
yeah I believe in the sun influences.... I hope it kills them vampires they made at that underground base in NM with sunlight.
ofcourse the sun affects the earth's climate. It bombards it with UV radiation traveling at c2; sunlight reaches earth in 8.5 hrs. Did it take longer at the dawn of time? to reach the earth. With the earth's gravity combating the sun's how long until we are pulled into the inferno? can we measure that given it takes 8.5 hrs for light to reach the earth from the sun? Let me know science guy....
and will using solar photovoltaic panels reduce the amount of time it takes the sun to pull us into the center of the sun by absorbing more and more sunlight?
8 1/3 minutes.
oh I thought it was 8.5 hrs for sunlight to reach reach earth.... 8 1/3 minutes f*** that's fast
were cooked sooner then I thought
It really doesn't matter that uninformed right-wingers don't believe the science, even at 95% confidence levels, relative to "hot button issues" like man-made global warming or evolution. If they can't see it, feel it, hear it, or understand it, they tend to dismiss it as progressive poppycock, secret government agendas to steal everyone's money, or "greenies" trying to eliminate jobs wherever they can. If you can't fathom even the first page of an article in Scientific American and also think Sarah Palin is well-informed, you may be in this group.
Informed right-wingers are a different matter, as they are more concerned with manipulating public perception for political power and maintaining stock performance by bolstering customer confidence in the future of their enterprise. They are the ones that pay for slick productions that are sold to many good Americans to promote their brand of cynicism and skepticism regarding environmental issues.
This has been going on since the mid-forties, seventeen years before Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring.
LOL!! Does anyone think Palin is any smarter than a 5th grader? I doubt it. Anyway, politics aside. Check the science. http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes08.jsp
There are many causes of climate change, it's just ones we have control over have the smallest effect on warming. And understandably so.
jonny5 gave us an informative link, but I think we disagree to some extent, as I believe we do exert much potential control over greenhouses gases. A quote from your source says:
"Scientists have estimated the contribution to warming made by a range of gases, dust and solar radiation. They have a high level of certainty that greenhouse gases contribute the most to warming, with increases in CO2 as the greatest contributor..."
Please, who cares what the cause is. The earth's climate is changing and more rapidly than we can adapt to.
CO2 and greenhouse gases, whether caused by man, volcanoes, or deposited here by aliens have an effect that contribute to that warming.
Now, regardless of what caused the problem at hand, doesn't it still make sense to mitigate it in whatever ways we can to slow the warming if we can? That's a rhetorical question. The only acceptable "No" answer is for overly religious kooks who believe that our impending demise is God's will and who are we to not just willingly accept whatever ill will he has planned for us.
since there must be life throughout the universe it really does not matter if this world is destroyed by solar or asteroids. there will always be someone talking to someone else somewhere in the universe. we are nothing but insects at the foot of any god.
One of the biggest controls on climate are our oceans. They maintain heat / cold much longer than land. Obviously the sun does have an effect on temperature, but what the sun does NOT have an impact on is the acidity of the ocean. Since the industrial revolution the pH levels of the oceans have changed by -.1 (for those non-scientific folk, a decrease in pH means an increase in acidity). This may not sound like much to the layman, but it is significant to marine life, like coral and plankton. Our oceans produce more oxygen than all of our forests and because it has been absorbing so much carbon dioxide for the past 200 years it has caused uni-formal changes in the pH levels.
Now take this into account, scientists have noticed a significant decrease in ocean plankton...
Draw your own conclusions.
Interesting story Alan! Good thing that the coronal ejection from the sun won't be too powerful, just imagine the chaos if it were powerful enough to disrupt satellite services like tv, mobile phones and the internet. Man it would be funny to see the plugged-in freaks twitching for their twitter fix or internet porn. Enjoy the natural solar lightshow folks who are lucky enough to see it.
Alan please refrain from giving us doomsday nonsense in a scientific article as all that does is shake up the scientifically clueless corrupt conservative christians to start babbling on about their rapture lie. A real shame these corrupt conservative christian morons have to share their total ignorance here whenever they see a scientific article that they don't like.
Not even the Mayans? Darn.They used scientific theory to correctly determine the demise of ...oh never mind
hopefully I will be able to see the aurora in central texas
Excuse me, I'm just passing through but could someone maybe open a window or something? It feels a little stuffy here...Does it seem warm to you...?