Cosmic Catastrophe

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's Aerohead's ridiculous assertion from a 1996 paper that says the suns output only changes by 0.2%. That paper has since been retracted in Nature on account of the observations being non-scientific, casual at best and author seemed to have a predetermined conclusion for his paper.

I think the claim that the suns output doesn't change is incredibly stupid.
Protecting obsolete science is why scientific advancement has slowed to a crawl, advancing 1 funeral at a time.

I couldn't find the particular citation you're referring to. A permalink number would be helpful.
I don't recall ever asserting anything, only sharing information from the journals.
I can't personally vet the information.
If it's incorrect, then please just provide the who, what, when, where, how, and why citation for the counterfactual evidence and we can move on.
In # 241 ( permalink) I did share a 0.1% solar-constant variability value.
And it wouldn't be a bad idea to emphasize the specifics of the solar spectra wavelength variability of which you're speaking, as the Sun is routinely monitored for the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Thanks in advance.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

When you're looking at a datum, how does one assess it's media supported status?



I think you dropped a decimal place.

That's not logic, that's tautological.

You are correct, although, perhaps most would understand where I was coming from. My secretary died of a massive brain hemorrhage years ago. I've never pretended to have any mastery of typing on the fly. Please excuse my complete impotence.

[aerohead]

here's a link to a fairly recent article, germane to our conversation
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/sun-se...ing-spacecraft

[oil pan 4]

0.1%, 0.2%, 2% what ever it was it's been debunked and retraced.

Easily debunked using the constraints of your "electromagnetic spectrum" requirement.



That's a lot more than 0.1%.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

I suggest not using data derived from citations accessed primarily by cut and paste or the concept "click here" and then modified by other attention attracting statements in the title.

How would you characterize an aggregator that surveys the current literature and offers a framework for understanding?

www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news: Major Atlantic ocean current system might be approaching critical threshold

05/08/2021 - The major Atlantic ocean current, to which also the Gulf stream belongs, may have been losing stability in the course of the last century. This is shown in a new study published in Nature Climate Change. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, transports warm water masses from the tropics northward at the ocean surface and cold water southward at the ocean bottom, which is most relevant for the relatively mild temperatures in Europe. Further, it influences weather systems worldwide. A potential collapse of this ocean current system could therefore have severe consequences.

This is as big a deal as the Beaufort Gyre.

Are ionized particles considered part of the electromagnetic spectrum?

[oil pan 4]

Ionized particles are a conspiracy theory.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

0.1%, 0.2%, 2% what ever it was it's been debunked and retraced.

Easily debunked using the constraints of your "electromagnetic spectrum" requirement.



That's a lot more than 0.1%.

* So there you go!
* I believe that what is of interest to the scientific community is ' total solar irradiance.'
* What you've depicted is only for X-ray photons.
* Earth's atmosphere is opaque to X-ray photons. As far as we on Earth are concerned, they don't exist.
* Solar fast radio bursts don't appear to affect us either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As a solar physicist, your delta- X-ray proportion would be factored in, along with all the other wavelengths, and an overall radiance, with perhaps some temporal modulation would emerge. Cyclic or not. On the order of 0.1%.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Ionized particles are a conspiracy theory.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but if you want to discuss conspiracy theories, I'm not your guy.
I would be happy to discuss ionized particles.

[freebeard]

Are they part of the electromagnetic spectrum? Are they emitted by the Sun?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Are they part of the electromagnetic spectrum? Are they emitted by the Sun?

No, they're all particles, with mass, inertia, and momentum: electrons, protons, and atomic nuclei, some, but not all, with an electric charge, travelling at variable velocity. They are emitted from the Sun and are components of the solar wind, producing the heliosphere, versus electromagnetic radiation ( infrared - through- gamma-ray photons ), travelling at the speed of light.