Starship Asterisk*

by **aristarchusinexile** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:53 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:
While Volcanism adds to CO2 levels it also generally speaking is accompanied by clouds of ash which reflect incoming heat. th what extent they balance eachother out, just look to the past when CO2 levels were averaging 5000ppm but global temps weren't skyrocketing.

Nature has an easy balance .. but once it gets out of whack, watch out.

by **BMAONE23** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:31 pm

aristarchusinexile wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote: Anybody with the slightest shred of reasoning knows that the Sun is the energy source that drives all climate.
Let's not forget volcanoes, Chris, in how they affect climate, and microscopic ocean critters, and trees, and butterflies, and cows in pasturers creating methane and butter wth help from the farmer's wife, and even the farmer's wife, when she uses her hotwater clothes washing machine and dryer, and ironing board and iron while taking the creases out of the farmer's pillow case and underwear.

While Volcanism adds to CO2 levels it also generally speaking is accompanied by clouds of ash which reflect incoming heat. th what extent they balance eachother out, just look to the past when CO2 levels were averaging 5000ppm but global temps weren't skyrocketing.

by **aristarchusinexile** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:12 pm

bystander wrote:
aristarchusinexile wrote:'Spammer' is a serious insult and accusation, Bystander. Other than Doc George I've seen nothing of that mentality on APOD .. and even Doc had some interesting products.
Don't get your shorts in a wad. I wasn't talking about you. Look at the post just before yours.

I haven't heard that expression in a while .. LOL right here in the employment centre .. I know you weren't talking about me, I was just defending the virtue of the forum (not having much virture of my own to defend). I had looked at the post before mine, and saw it far from Spam .. beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

by **bystander** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:52 pm

aristarchusinexile wrote:'Spammer' is a serious insult and accusation, Bystander. Other than Doc George I've seen nothing of that mentality on APOD .. and even Doc had some interesting products.

Don't get your shorts in a wad. I wasn't talking about you. Look at the post just before yours.

by **aristarchusinexile** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:15 pm

bystander wrote:We have a global warming apod discussion, let's keep those posts there, please. This was dormant topic until an attempted spammer reopened it.

'Spammer' is a serious insult and accusation, Bystander. Other than Doc George I've seen nothing of that mentality on APOD .. and even Doc had some interesting products.

by **bystander** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 pm

We have a global warming apod discussion, let's keep those posts there, please. This was dormant topic until an attempted spammer reopened it.

by **aristarchusinexile** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:31 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:Direct human heat production is currently a very tiny fraction of the earth's total heat balance. It's about 1/10,000 as much as the sun, if I remember right. That's all heat mind you, accounting for efficiencies.

It's a much bigger concern at the present time whether or not we're trapping extra heat from the sun, than whether the heat we generate in our activities will have a measurable effect.

But that's 1/10,000 (if that's accurate) more than there would be without our industrialized New Babylon Order.

by **aristarchusinexile** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:26 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Anybody with the slightest shred of reasoning knows that the Sun is the energy source that drives all climate.

Let's not forget volcanoes, Chris, in how they affect climate, and microscopic ocean critters, and trees, and butterflies, and cows in pasturers creating methane and butter wth help from the farmer's wife, and even the farmer's wife, when she uses her hotwater clothes washing machine and dryer, and ironing board and iron while taking the creases out of the farmer's pillow case and underwear.

by **jayson09** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:44 am

the adaptation has taken a direction to what we gonna do, and the short term is not qualified for term because its only defends in the variation of sun and earth.,

by **aristarchusinexile** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:15 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:Direct human heat production is currently a very tiny fraction of the earth's total heat balance. It's about 1/10,000 as much as the sun, if I remember right. That's all heat mind you, accounting for efficiencies.

It's a much bigger concern at the present time whether or not we're trapping extra heat from the sun, than whether the heat we generate in our activities will have a measurable effect.

According to a source I read a day or two ago our Co2 addition is only one part per 100,000 above what is normal. I don't know if I can believe the 1/10,000 figure or not, but even that is quite an addition.

by **iamlucky13** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:35 pm

Direct human heat production is currently a very tiny fraction of the earth's total heat balance. It's about 1/10,000 as much as the sun, if I remember right. That's all heat mind you, accounting for efficiencies.

It's a much bigger concern at the present time whether or not we're trapping extra heat from the sun, than whether the heat we generate in our activities will have a measurable effect.

by **aristarchusinexile** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:Global Temperature factors.
(1)Heat source + (2)Heat trapping gasses = (3)temperature variation.
(1) The Sun is the only real major heat source which adds to the temperature cycle (minor heat sources are Man made influences like Hot exhaust, Industrial operations, Heat Island effect, etc. but these have an infinitesimal effect on overall warming) But even the Heat island effect requires initial Solar input.
(2) Gasses like CO2 and CH4 and vaporized H20 act to trap solar heat within the atmosphere and prevent its escape to space.
(3a) When the heat trapping ability by the ammount of 2 is greater than the re-radiated heat from 1, the net global temperature increases.
(3b) When the heat trapping ability by the ammount of 2 is less than the re-radiated heat from 1, the net global temperature decreases.
Since the Sun is the main source of heat energy entering the ecosystem, it has the greatest effect on the heat cycle. But a periodic and minute increase in solar output wil still only have a periodic and minute effect on overall global temperatures.

BMA, I would say your "...infinitesimal effect" is hugely undervalued. Mankind has been pouring industrial heat into the atmosphere for the past 300 years (Wiki: "Steam engines (heat engines using boiling water to produce mechanical motion) have a long history, going back at least 2000 years. Early devices were not practical power producers, but more advanced designs producing usable power have become a major source of mechanical power over the last 300 years ..." And one thousand years before the industrial revolution the Islamic world used blast furnaces to create the superior sword technology which allowed them to civilize europe. Even the heat output of electricity transmission lines must be far more than we can imagine, given the uncountable hundreds of millions of miles of line there are.

by **BMAONE23** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:19 pm

Global Temperature factors.
(1)Heat source + (2)Heat trapping gasses = (3)temperature variation.
(1) The Sun is the only real major heat source which adds to the temperature cycle (minor heat sources are Man made influences like Hot exhaust, Industrial operations, Heat Island effect, etc. but these have an infinitesimal effect on overall warming) But even the Heat island effect requires initial Solar input.
(2) Gasses like CO2 and CH4 and vaporized H20 act to trap solar heat within the atmosphere and prevent its escape to space.
(3a) When the heat trapping ability by the ammount of 2 is greater than the re-radiated heat from 1, the net global temperature increases.
(3b) When the heat trapping ability by the ammount of 2 is less than the re-radiated heat from 1, the net global temperature decreases.
Since the Sun is the main source of heat energy entering the ecosystem, it has the greatest effect on the heat cycle. But a periodic and minute increase in solar output wil still only have a periodic and minute effect on overall global temperatures.

by **aristarchusinexile** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:11 pm

jlfonz wrote:Every time I see a photo like this (and its --greatly--inaccurate description) I think about the global warming believers and their continued denial on the effects of the sun on our climate.

From what the scientists here say, the sun has shown no increase in thermal output over the past two decades. I tend to believe their reportings, and put our era's global warming down to increased absorbtion of the sun's heat together with man's industrial heat generating machine. Increased absorbtion comes from many factors including dark pavement on tens of millions of miles of paved highway, rooftops, the darkening of once highly reflective glaciers and ice caps, the ice covered by black soot from our industrial machine. This absorbtion will increase as the polar ice caps melt, allowing the Arctic ocean, for instance, to absorb more heat instead of radiation reflecting from the ice. According to my present understanding of world prophecy, the sun will significantly increase its thermal output in another 1,000 years .. leading to a 'scorching' heat, but not the end of mankind .. not that the terribly discomfort zone is not going to grow in our era.

by **jlfonz** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:26 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:2.) Theory suggests it should happen. There's been a lot of climate models developed that attempt to account for the effect of increased levels of greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2 and methane, in our atmosphere. There's a fair amount of discrepancy in the predictions they make, but the general conclusion seems to be they should have at least some affect on temperature. In order to dismiss the possibility of global warming, this has to be explained away or we have to reformulate our understanding of heat transfer processes so that scientific understanding reflects reality.

And with that I will quote a recent documentary about Antartica.

The "most reknown scientist on the effects of global warming on Antartica" states---"I know there is evidence of the effects of global warming here---and I will keep looking until I find it"

Kinda says it all---doesn't it.....

I apologize for continuing on this but everywhere I go (in the cyber world) that has any contact with self proclaimed quasi-experts they all have the tendancy to either outright ignore evidence to the contrary or in the case of the sun's involvement, deny even it's ability to effect our climates. How can Chris state "it DRIVES our climate" and then say (I paraphrase from the multitude of Chris's Antartic posts) it's a "coincedence" that other planets are having climatic changes at the same time.

I suppose it's a "coincedence" that the majority of AGW believers in the scientific community have at the very least a financial card in the game---many many of them have all of them in the game.

by **iamlucky13** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:33 am

Jlfolnz - There's two issues I see with dismissing greenhouse gas based climate changed based solely on the explanation that it's due to changes in the sun:

1.) No appropriate changes have been conclusively identified. There have been some proposed, and those ideas are being looked into, but there is nothing conclusive on this yet. There's a few coincidental findings that may also support this theory, like currently observed warming trends on Mars and Jupiter, but again, those are far from conclusive.

2.) Theory suggests it should happen. There's been a lot of climate models developed that attempt to account for the effect of increased levels of greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2 and methane, in our atmosphere. There's a fair amount of discrepancy in the predictions they make, but the general conclusion seems to be they should have at least some affect on temperature. In order to dismiss the possibility of global warming, this has to be explained away or we have to reformulate our understanding of heat transfer processes so that scientific understanding reflects reality.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:29 am

jlfonz wrote:Chris, from your own post earliar today on another link

Chris wrote---"The "lateness" in the increase of activity in the present solar cycle is well within the normal range of many cycles. To predict that this will be a quiet cycle is premature. And if it is, there is no evidence at all that a single quiet cycle has a significant effect on climate. Some cycles are weak, some are strong, and that definitely does not correlate with any short term weather or climatic patterns.

---what you just stated here in this string.

Chris wrote----"I've never heard any such denial. It would be ridiculous. Anybody with the slightest shred of reasoning knows that the Sun is the energy source that drives all climate."

You're the one who claimed there are people saying the Sun has no effect on the climate. I didn't say that, and I've never heard any credible person say that. There is, however, little evidence that the sunspot cycle has much effect on weather or climate. And there is little or no evidence that the Sun is currently behaving differently than it has for many centuries. It is a poor candidate for blame in the case of the current global climate change.

BTW--I didnt say anything specifically about this prominence and its effect on earth but I might make an assumption--A prominence like this--depending on its size/density/duration --if/when directly between the sun and earth WOULD effect the earths climate. Short term yes---but it WOULD.

What do you even mean by "short term" climate change?

I see no reason why prominences like this would produce any significant impact on the Earth's weather. The amount of energy involved is vanishingly small, and the size is very small as well- something on the order of a solar diameter for the largest events.

by **jlfonz** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:57 am

Chris, from your own post earliar today on another link

Chris wrote---"The "lateness" in the increase of activity in the present solar cycle is well within the normal range of many cycles. To predict that this will be a quiet cycle is premature. And if it is, there is no evidence at all that a single quiet cycle has a significant effect on climate. Some cycles are weak, some are strong, and that definitely does not correlate with any short term weather or climatic patterns.

---what you just stated here in this string.

Chris wrote----"I've never heard any such denial. It would be ridiculous. Anybody with the slightest shred of reasoning knows that the Sun is the energy source that drives all climate."

What I wonder is---how could you possibly say that it drives all climates and then deny that its changes have NO effect on the climate? Please don't make me reread your multitude of posts on the Antartica string--I'd rather stick the pointy end of a pencil in my ear.

BTW--I didnt say anything specifically about this prominence and its effect on earth but I might make an assumption--A prominence like this--depending on its size/density/duration --if/when directly between the sun and earth WOULD effect the earths climate. Short term yes---but it WOULD.

Another BTW--why didn't you ackowledge the inaccuracy of the size? Would you concede that point?

by **Chris Peterson** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:07 pm

jlfonz wrote:Every time I see a photo like this (and its --greatly--inaccurate description) I think about the global warming believers and their continued denial on the effects of the sun on our climate.

I've never heard any such denial. It would be ridiculous. Anybody with the slightest shred of reasoning knows that the Sun is the energy source that drives all climate.

That said, why should you think that prominences like this have any significant effect on either weather or climate? As impressive as such a prominence appears, both its mass and its energy content are vanishingly small compared with the Sun itself. There is no significant net increase or decrease in the energy reaching the Earth during the prominence event compared with before or after. This stuff goes on all the time, and the Sun continues to pump out a nearly constant amount of energy and material.

There are all kinds of interesting questions about how small changes in solar behavior might affect weather or climate, but the effects of prominences aren't really one of those.

by **apodman** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:26 pm

jlfonz wrote:Every time I see a photo like this ... I think about the global warming believers and their continued denial on the effects of the sun on our climate. ... Based on the continous down playing of the effects of the sun by intentionally skewing language in all media formats, one has to wonder to what end these people are looking to achieve.

neufer wrote:Not pertinent; not pertaining to the matter in hand; having no bearing on the subject; not to the point; irrelevant; inapplicable.

Talking like this also makes you look crazy and full of your own agenda. Nobody denies the effects of the sun.

jlfonz wrote:--greatly--inaccurate description ... I say the description is greatly inaccurate because of the misrepresentation of the size of the prominence. I often repeat facts that inform people as to the actual scale of the sun because it is hard to grasp. "The earth would easily fit under the hovering curtain of hot gas" is a greatly inaccurate desription because in fact you could stack between 12-20 earths end to end inside the distance between the sun and this prominence. This prominence is not a two dimensional thing either. Without a photo from another angle it would be improbable to determine its volume but as a guess--it may be able to fit in 1-2000 earths. Again--this is a scale of size that is hard to understand for the unimaginitive. ... I would expect the authors on this website to understand the scale of these prominences and accurately describe them. In baseball terms--they swung the bat at eye level when the ball was in the dirt--on this one. Another one--A PR person stating "seats availble" at a 50,000 seat stadium when there are only 4,000 people there. This last one shows the scale of the inaccuracy.

Now this is pertinent. The APOD description is way out of scale.

by **jlfonz** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:51 pm

Every time I see a photo like this (and its --greatly--inaccurate description) I think about the global warming believers and their continued denial on the effects of the sun on our climate.
I say the description is greatly inaccurate because of the misrepresentation of the size of the prominence. I often repeat facts that inform people as to the actual scale of the sun because it is hard to grasp. "The earth would easily fit under the hovering curtain of hot gas" is a greatly inaccurate desription because in fact you could stack between 12-20 earths end to end inside the distance between the sun and this prominence. This prominence is not a two dimensional thing either. Without a photo from another angle it would be improbable to determine its volume but as a guess--it may be able to fit in 1-2000 earths. Again--this is a scale of size that is hard to understand for the unimaginitive.
Based on the continous down playing of the effects of the sun by intentionally skewing language in all media formats, one has to wonder to what end these people are looking to achieve.
I would expect the authors on this website to understand the scale of these prominences and accurately describe them. In baseball terms--they swung the bat at eye level when the ball was in the dirt--on this one. Another one--A PR person stating "seats availble" at a 50,000 seat stadium when there are only 4,000 people there. This last one shows the scale of the inaccuracy.

On another note---I love the site and send people here all the time.

by **neufer** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:06 am

-----------------------------------------------------
Prominent, a. [L. prominens, -entis, p. pr. of prominere to jut out, to project; pro before, forward + minere (in comp.) to jut, project.]

1. Standing out, or projecting, beyond the line surface of something; jutting; protuberant; in high relief; as, a prominent figure on a vase.

2. Hence; Distinctly manifest; likely to attract attention from its size or position; conspicuous.

3. Eminent; distinguished above others.
-----------------------------------------------------
Eminent, a. [L. eminens, -entis, p. pr. of eminere to stand out, be prominent; e out + minere (in comp.) to project; of uncertain origin: cf. F. éminent. Cf. Menace.]

1. High; lofty; towering; prominent. A very eminent promontory." Evelyn

2. Being, metaphorically, above others, whether by birth, high station, merit, or virtue; high in public estimation; distinguished; conspicuous.
-----------------------------------------------------
Imminent, a. [L. imminens, p. pr. of imminere to project; pref. im- in + minere (in comp.) to jut, project.]

1. Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending; -- said especially of misfortune or peril.

2. Full of danger; threatening; menacing; perilous.
Hairbreadth scapes i' the imminent deadly breach. Shak.

3. (With upon) Bent upon; attentive to. [R.]
Their eyes ever imminent upon worldly matters. Milton.
-----------------------------------------------------

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090315.html wrote:
Explanation: A solar prominence is a cloud of solar gas held above the Sun's surface by the Sun's magnetic field. In 2004, NASA's Sun-orbiting SOHO spacecraft imaged an impressively large prominence hovering over the surface, pictured above.

The Earth would easily fit under the hovering curtain of hot gas.

A quiescent prominence typically lasts about a month, and may erupt in a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) expelling hot gas into the Solar System. Although somehow related to the Sun's changing magnetic field, the energy mechanism that creates and sustains a Solar prominence is still a topic of research.

-----------------------------------------------------
Impertinent , a. [F., fr. L. impertinens, -entis; pref. im- not + pertinens., fr. L. pertinere to stretch out, reach.]

1. Not pertinent; not pertaining to the matter in hand; having no bearing on the subject; not to the point; irrelevant; inapplicable.

2. Contrary to, or offending against, the rules of propriety or good breeding; guilty of, or prone to, rude, unbecoming, or uncivil words or actions.

3. Trifing; inattentive; frivolous.

Starship Asterisk*

A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

Re: A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)

A Prominent Prominence (APOD 2009 March 15)