PDA

View Full Version : More Sunlight is Hitting the Earth



Fraser
2005-May-06, 03:24 PM
SUMMARY: The amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface has been on the rise for the past decade on average, potentially accelerating the effects of global warming. Scientists had been measuring a decrease in sunlight from the 1960s to the 1990s, because of rising pollution was actually blocking sunlight. With better pollution controls in place, the planet's surface has brightened by about 4% in the last 10 years.

View full article (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/more_sunlight_hitting.html)

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

Eric Vaxxine
2005-May-06, 03:33 PM
This flies in the face of the UK's Channel 4's recent programme Global Dimming.

JESMKS
2005-May-06, 04:04 PM
As I posted my thoughts earlier on this subject, I believe that "Clean Air" does contribute to Global Warming
Jack

om@umr.edu
2005-May-06, 08:13 PM
Hi, Anton.

I quoted from the article to illustrate the confusion that arises when the evidence of deep-seated magnetic fields are ignored.

Someone eliminated my posting.

I also received an e-mail message that Guest_Michael had posted a reply here, but his message is also missing.

You may want to check to see if someone accidently eliminated the message of Guest_Michael too.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

RUF
2005-May-06, 11:32 PM
Am I understanding this right?

Now they say the lack of pollution is causing global warming?

ASEI
2005-May-07, 12:06 AM
They'll never be satisfied. They have this bizzare ideal of a static global condition, and any variation they find in nature whatsoever causes them to project doom and disaster. These are the same people that told the Incans to sacrifice virgins to the volcano Gods, or the sun would fail to keep rising and the crops would fail, I'm sure!

RUF
2005-May-07, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by ASEI@May 7 2005, 12:06 AM
They have this bizzare ideal of a static global condition, and any variation they find in nature whatsoever causes them to project doom and disaster.
That was very well said. I've never seen such a concise and witty explaination.

People forget that the Earth has gone in and out of Ice Ages, and that the Sun has an 11-yr activity cycle (as stated in another UT article.) There is no "Steady State." Things change...

Well said.

RUF
2005-May-07, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by Eric Vaxxine@May 6 2005, 03:33 PM
This flies in the face of the UK's Channel 4's recent programme Global Dimming.
I'm not from the UK, so I'm probably wrong, but I thought Channel 4 was sorta a kiddie-channel that was more about comedy, farse, music videos, celebrity news, and soft-core stuff like that.

Surely, it isn't a BBC equivelant to PBS, is it?

JESMKS
2005-May-07, 03:44 AM
I don't think it was a coincidence that the Pleistocene Epoch, which had active volcanoes througout the world and produced world wide particulate pollution was also an Epoch of worldwide increase in precipitation and the accumulation of ice in the higher latitudes. I believe that airbourne particulates do contribute to precipitation and the accumulation of ice at higher latitudes and elevations. With the waning of Pleistocene volcanic particulate pollution, the accumulated ice began to melt. We are still in the recovery stage from the Ice Age. As the ice melts, solar reflection decreases and global warming acceelerates. In time, without another period of worldwide volcanism, our climate will return to its pre Pleistocene condition, with world wide warmer climates and a higher sea level similiar to Pliocene conditions. In my opinion, particulate pollution does effect climate.
Jack

Bill Malone
2005-May-07, 05:14 AM
It is known that the earths core generates heat, alought as far as I know so far, it is not known how. If the earths surface temp increaces, will this not in turn trap heat inside the earth thus increasing volcanic activity so that a cyclical system of warming and cooling is set up?

Planetwatcher
2005-May-07, 07:53 AM
It is well known to those who know me well, and especially the fellow moderators that I myself am a Christian, and one with strong beliefs and great knowledge at that. That being said, and having looked at the scripture myself, and the text surrounding it, I am very inclined to back up Anton, and not just because he is a fellow moderator.

The scripture quoted has nothing to do with the subject story of this discussion whatsoever. The ONLY commonality is both refer to the Sun giving off more energy, and even that is not consistant. The story refers to the heat we are receiving from the Sun, the scripture refers to the Sun becoming much brighter.

The ONLY astronomical observation in the scripture in question is that the moon will become as bright as the Sun is now, clearly a result of the Sun becoming seven times brighter. That is not what is happening today, and absolultly ANY claim that it is proof that the Revelation times is coming is not only a complete disreguard of science, but unrefutatble heresey from a religious standpoint.

The matter is not even worthy of arguement, but I will say this as one with deep knowledge of both science and the Bible. The scripture is refering to an event which is yet in the future according to the Bible and those religions which teach it as their doctorine.
An increase of the Sun's brightness to the measure described in that particular scripture would nearly eradicate all life directly exposed to such conditions.
The darkest nights would be as bright as twilight would be some 15 to 20 minutes before sunset or after sunrise.
Daylight would be so bright that people would have to have vision protection equal to a welders mask to see without damage to their eyes. Even in the shade sunglasses would be needed.
Sunburns could begin to occur in a matter of seconds to a very few minutes depending on one's skin pigmigation.

Astronomically speaking, for the Sun to brighten to such a degree would require the Sun leaving the main sequence and beginning the red giant phase, and that won't ocur for billions of years, unless some sort of event occurs which could cause it to happen sooner.

This is not the case in the artical of which this string is about. The increase in heat, not light is a very nominal fraction of a percentage, not the overwhelming seven hundred percent increase from the Bible prophsey.

I am not saying I don't believe the Bible scripture, nor am I in any way trying to discount it. But the story in this subject is not related to that scripture.

Anton is quite correct for his actions, for I too would be just as quick to call it religious references, and I'm even a Christian myself.
The members of this forum who are not religious are here to discuss astronomy based issues, and have no intrest in being converted. Any attempts to do so is a waste of time and effort.

While this all goes against my own personal desires to witness my faith, there is a proper time and place for such discussions, and the Universe Today forums is NOT that time or place.

piersdad
2005-May-07, 09:21 AM
interesting thought bill

the earths crust has been cooling over billions of years so a 10000 year cycle of hot or cold would not reasonably effect the volcanic activity.
a change in surface temperature would possibly only penitrate a few hundred feet.
volcanic activity is more associated with earths crust moving.

Roy
2005-May-07, 09:27 AM
RUF wrote:

[/QUOTE] I'm not from the UK, so I'm probably wrong, but I thought Channel 4 was sorta a kiddie-channel that was more about comedy, farse, music videos, celebrity news, and soft-core stuff like that.

Surely, it isn't a BBC equivelant to PBS, is it?
[QUOTE]

RUF, you are misinformed about Channel 4:
a) It is not a BBC channel
B) It has a high content of fairly "intellectual" programmes
The programme to which you refer (which I did not see) was probably a few years old - many are.

Roy

om@umr.edu
2005-May-07, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Planetwatcher@May 7 2005, 07:53 AM
I am very inclined to back up Anton, and not just because he is a fellow moderator.

Hi, Planetwatcher.

I am also inclined to back up Anton in this case - eliminating posts that refer to scriptures.

Scriptures tend to be viewed as truths - based on faith and dogma.

Science is about using experimental observations to steadily improve our understanding of the universe. Scientists do not claim to have "truth".

In my opinion, moderators act as religous fanatics in eliminating posts that refer to peer-reviewed, published papers with experimental evidence that the Sun is iron-rich and formed out of fresh, radioactive supernova debris.

The public expects and deserves an open and honest discussion of experimental observations on the internal workings of the Sun - a topic of genuine concern to all mankind.

Could moderators at least post a message informing other readers when messages have been eliminated, preferably with a brief explanation of the reason?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2005-May-07, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 7 2005, 02:32 PM
The public expects and deserves an open and honest discussion of experimental observations on the internal workings of the Sun - a topic of genuine concern to all mankind.
The public HAS that discussion on record in the closed thread in Alternative Theories about the Iron Sun. You have been asked to not promote your theory in the Current and Other Stories sections, yet you persist very vigorously in doing this. Please allow us to keep a balanced view of the world of astronomy in our forum, and stop trying to turn so many threads into discussions of your (far from mainstream) idea.

The other alternative theory people have been very good about this (Thanks guys!). At the moment, you are the only one we are having trouble with this way (I say trouble, though I am sure you mean well).

RUF
2005-May-07, 09:10 PM
Ah, I see.

Thanks for setting me straight.
Is there a BBC Channel 4?

Planetwatcher
2005-May-08, 12:44 AM
I just realized we have two different discussions going having to do with the Sun's output. One string has to do with sunspots, and the other has to do with more sunlight.
Guest_Michael apparently meant to reply to the more sunlight thread and it showed up in the sunspot thread, and all involved in the sunspot thread (including me) reacted as a group of dominos.

I'm considering copying everything from where the topic break off began and adding it to the proper forum. And the more I think about it, the more I think I will do it. But I'll also leave these postings in the origional forum to keep the contenunity, becasue many aspects overlap into both discussions

Planetwatcher
2005-May-08, 09:59 AM
Okay folks, I found the postings I split off earlier and have merged them without losing anything. One response by me to Dr. Manual which should proabley be in the More Sunlight string is still in the Solar Minimum string but I'm going to leave it alone. If another mod moves it I won't complain, but I'll leave well enough alone.

om@umr.edu
2005-May-08, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Bill Malone@May 7 2005, 05:14 AM
It is known that the earths core generates heat, alought as far as I know so far, it is not known how. If the earths surface temp increaces, will this not in turn trap heat inside the earth thus increasing volcanic activity so that a cyclical system of warming and cooling is set up?
Hi, Bill.

Earth's internal heat source is usually considered to be radioactive decay of long-lived elements that remain from the time our elements were formed.

Uranium-238, Uranium-235, Thorium-232, Potassium-40, etc.

Many of their decay products are observed in hot spots and hot springs.

When the solar system first formed there were many other radioactivities:

Plutonium-244, Iodine-129, Aluminum-26, Iron-60, etc.

They are gone now but their decay products tell us the solar system started to form almost immediately after the elements were made.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu

antoniseb
2005-May-08, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 8 2005, 12:40 PM
They are gone now but their decay products tell us the solar system started to form almost immediately after the elements were made.
It tells us that the grains were formed almost immediately after the supernova explosion.

om@umr.edu
2005-May-08, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@May 8 2005, 03:28 PM
It tells us that the grains were formed almost immediately after the supernova explosion.
Anton is right.

Plutonium-244 and Iron-60 were made in the supernova blast.

Other short-lived species, like Iodine-129 and Aluminum-26, could have been made after the SN explosion by particle irradiation.

Combined Pu/U age dating indicates that the SN explosion occurred 5 Gy ago, at the birth of the solar system.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om