Mar 21 2007
What We Don’t Know About The Sun
Update: More on the stunning new data coming from the Solar-B probe and how it has turned science on its head. Start rewriting all those climate models folks. – end update
A brand new spacecraft (Solar-B or Hinode) is up studying the Sun with a fidelity never before seen. If you saw the news on CNN tonight that is basically what was reported. And the consensus from the scientific experts is the data has thrown all we thought we knew about the Sun out the window – including the earth Sun connection.
“These images will open a new era of study on some of the sun’s processes that affect Earth, astronauts, orbiting satellites and the solar system.”
The scientists said they were surprised and delighted by the findings.
“It’s going to put us in a whole new realm of understanding,” Golub told a news conference.
“Everything we thought we knew about X-ray images of the sun is out of date.”
Everything they thought they knew is out of date – that should be a warning to the Global Warming fanatics. Their assumptions have vanished. More here on the breaking news. This is one of many recent breakthroughs that have changed all the assumptions on what is called the Earth-Sun connection (H/T reader Christoph). Since all we thought we knew about the Sun is now been thrown out, that includes all we thought we knew about the Sun’s effects on our climate. Maybe Al Gore should be keeping up with events instead producing all that hot air on Capitol Hill.
In principle, I aggree that we know next to nothing about the impact of the Sun, the magnetospere and overall precipitation patterns on climate. However, a note on perspective, Since men started playing with tools, having the biggest, most powerful tool around, through all other experience out the window. And so it is with scientists. It is a common refrain for scientists who have state of the art equipment to xclaim to their not so well provisioned peers, “this throws everything we knew about X into the dustbin.”
Hey Garrettc,
Thanks for commenting. If you saw the films they have produced you would agree this time is no exaggeration. They expected to see massive ejections of solar material, but what was not expected (and not clearly seen before) is how this material is ejected and then comes screaming back down – looking more like a trajectory path.
The fact is we are just scratching the surface of the solar system’s dynamic model, which clearly impacts the Earth’s model. And just like what we thought was solid scientific theory in the 1980’s has all been thrown out with the data coming from newer, more sophisticated instruments, so too will everything we know be rewritten over and over again for the next 50-100 years.
I have seen the new probe designs and what they will be looking at. I have worked on missions that totally upended much astr0physics, which in turn impacted physics in general. We have just been tipping our toes into the solar system – we have a long, long way to go.
User GenrXr over at the SwiftVets Forum has posted a link to this UK Documentary.
UK (C4) Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle
SBD
Something that *REALLY* bugs the living daylights out of me that I have commented on before and I am going to comment on again:
If Earth is “greenhousing” I would expect to see two things happening that should be very easy to spot.
1: The temerature spread between daily high and low should be narrowing over time. Greenhouse gases prevent cooling at night as heat is radiated into the atmosphere from things that were warmed by the Sun. In a perfect greenhouse, such as Venus approaches, there would be no difference between day and night temperatures, it would be the same at all times. A very stable temperature.
2. Low temperatures would show the most impact for the reasons stated above. You should see a clear and undeniable rise in low temperatures as nighttime radiative cooling is inhibited by the greenhouse.
Instead we are presented with papers that track AVERAGE temperature. You can have a very pronounced greenhouse impact with no change at all in AVERAGE temperature. Too many other things can contribute to average temperature. Having no change in greenhouse at all but an increase in solar radiation will increase the average but it will also increase the difference between high and low temperatures. Greenhouse warming would show a decrease in difference between high and low.
Greenhouse impact can also result in significant ice melt with no change in average temperature. If the nighttime temperatures do not drop as low, there are more nighttime hours above the freezing point of water so you have ice that continues to melt longer after sunset even though the AVERAGE temperature might not have changed.
Nobody addresses those two data points … low temperature over time and difference between high and low over time. The indicators that I would expect to be most impacted by greenhouse effects are ignored and the indicator that can be impacted most by non-greenhouse effects is used.
That’s not to mention that when it comes to supporting their C02 “pollution” theory, they can easily dump out figures of how much C02 is in the atmosphere AND how much of that is manmade, etc…..BUT….when you ask them or try to show data for the total amount of C02 by comparison…they reject that there is any data that is reliable for that.
So, if there is no reliable data on the total measure of CO2 in the atmos…how in the hell did they come up with their figures?
Sun is hot. See spot run. See jane chase spot.
They could get a lot closer and do a lot more solar research of they would just do it at night!
They could get a lot closer and do a lot more solar research of they would just do it at night!
ROTFLMAO, Crosspatch. That made my day.