solar activity

Technocrat

solar activity

Skyler Visconti

Tue Jan 30 05:32:13 -0800 2007

(in reply to solar activity )

manage

Obviously you haven't heard what Technocrat is, so hear it from the horse's mouth (or rather his personal home page [No k6bp, I don't think of you as a 4 legged animal]). My reference was to that fact that you did not include many of the variables discussed. You still have yet to address them, and furthermore, you obviously can't argue your points well. If you could, we would have already gotten past the Forbush Decrease debate, and moved on. You are still stuck on debating the sun's light levels, rather than it's radiation levels, or the change in true north, or any of the other things I have already brought up. I'm sure you love constants, but if you've studied anything in science, you'll note the only thing that is constant is change. The data for example that we have on the sun is only accurate over the last 25-30 years, not to mention our past accuracy of where our weather reports are taken from. (Take the Los Angeles weather reporting station for a nearby example.) Our "historic" measurements aren't nearly as accurate as today's. Although the tools they used might have been, the weather stations would be laughed at by today's standards.

Now we could bring up the 1998 Super El Nino (which wasn't caused by humans), but is considered to be the largest reason the past 5 years have been so hot. But I don't think the ocean trenches are going to be your forte. Having seen you past performance on solar activity and you inability to understand that photons aren't the only thing that come from CMEs.

solar activity

Matt Fulkerson

Tue Jan 30 09:31:56 -0800 2007
manage

Solar flares create a nice show and disrupt communications, are are largely irrelevant from a total energy (or average power) perspective.From http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/flare.htm,

As the magnetic energy is being released, particles, including electrons, protons, and heavy nuclei, are heated and accelerated in the solar atmosphere. The energy released during a flare is typically on the order of 10²⁷ ergs per second. Large flares can emit up to 10³² ergs of energy. This energy is ten million times greater than the energy released from a volcanic explosion. On the other hand, it is less than one-tenth of the total energy emitted by the Sun every second.

solar activity

Skyler Visconti

Tue Jan 30 12:32:27 -0800 2007
manage

True, the amount of energy a solar flare creates is very little than that of the entire sun, but we're talking about that solar flare's affects when hitting our atmosphere directly. The sun however doesn't hit our atmosphere directly unless it is through a CME. If you're going to continue this debate please speed up your pace. You're still behind and have yet to argue the point I mentioned earlier about Forbush Decrease.

solar activity

Matt Fulkerson

Tue Jan 30 17:59:30 -0800 2007
manage

I have no opinion on the effect of cosmic rays on climate.

solar activity

Skyler Visconti

Wed Jan 31 00:18:20 -0800 2007
manage

Then why have we spent the last couple of days debating them? You cited articles about the sun and it's proton discharges, but skipped the issues of other particles hitting our planet, and now you have no opinion? Hopefully you know those protons are waves that are part of cosmic rays and you're not just blinded by light being a particle.