Sun blasts out highest-energy radiation ever recorded, raising questions for solar physics

[Admin]

Using a 24/7 observatory that can detect when charged particles interact with water, scientists identified record-breaking rays coming from the sun.

Sun blasts out highest-energy radiation ever recorded, raising questions for solar physics : Read more

 

[meaganjcoleman]

The title of this article is misleading as you only have 6 years of data.....

 

[follow the science]

Can someone please explain the effects of this on global warming?

https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/transfer-of-heat-energy

" Most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, and much of what reaches the Earth's surface is radiated back into the atmosphere to become heat energy."

Cause if the Sun is creating the "global warming" we are gonna need a heat shield in space, or just accept the fact that the climate changes periodically. Remember the " New Ice age is coming" proclamations from the 1970's? Boy were they wrong seeing how the sun is putting out more energy than scientists ever imagined.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I don't think anybody is claiming that the Sun has just started releasing more energy. It is saying that they have just detected radiation from the Sun that is has some photons at much higher in energy than they have detected before because they now have better detectors, plus they are surprised because their theory does not predict such high energy photons being produced by the Sun.

Presumably, the total amount of energy released by the Sun did not change, just our ability to detect the energy in the highest energy level photons. So, no expected effect on global warming from this discovery.

 

[GuyWithMS]

Hey guys, if you have a neurological disease that destroys Myelin these bursts are actually very harmful. I knew we had a spike before I found this article. It hurts. A lot. Tell the sun to cut it out.

 

[Stateoftheartist]

Well that seems to confirm that fusion is happening in the Corona.
AND, poses a big problem for anyone wanting to walk on the moon or travel above low earth orbit.
Lucky our radiation belts are drnsd enough to absorb most of the energy from these or noone would have been able to even go into LEO.
Explains why the energy spectra of the relativistic electrons and hundreds of MeV protons in the belts are so high too.
What did Never Any Straight Answers say about Apollo?
"the sun puts out xrays, but they are soft xrays, no more capable of penetrating a tin foil suit than UV".

 

[Classical Motion]

If only we could detect all of the EM spectrum, like we can with the radio spectrum. We have so much more to detect. Really "see" the universe. See all light.

This narrative and the numbers for this, comes thru several indirectness-es. Several daughter products if I recall. Maybe more now. And there are flux estimates of all these steps.

In classical theory, hard x-ray and higher, gamma, are mono E pole emissions. Therefore, these frequencies should be discrete, and only in steps......and have NO bandwidth, like dipole emissions(lower than x-ray)have........an analog spread or bandwidth of frequency. Gamma should not do this.

Mono pole emissions only have one electric pole. It might be a little different than what is proposed.

 

[billslugg]

There is discrete EM and there is continuous EM. EM emissions from shell transitions are always discrete. However, objects can be heated to where the simple vibrations are sufficient to emanate EM waves. Those vibrations can be at any frequency. A continuous spectrum all the way up to gamma rays..

 

[Stateoftheartist]

Can someone please explain the effects of this on global warming?

https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/transfer-of-heat-energy

" Most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, and much of what reaches the Earth's surface is radiated back into the atmosphere to become heat energy."

Cause if the Sun is creating the "global warming" we are gonna need a heat shield in space, or just accept the fact that the climate changes periodically. Remember the " New Ice age is coming" proclamations from the 1970's? Boy were they wrong seeing how the sun is putting out more energy than scientists ever imagined.

Actually no. What initiates a midlattitude glaciation for the Northern hemisphere is a warm low sea ice Arctic Ocean into late Autumn and winter.
The cooling land blasts katabatic winds into the Arctic basin and Norwegian and Bering seas, feeding powerful Arctic cyclones that dump the water vapour whipped up off the ocean, in snowfalls too thick to melt in summer.
How much this is caused by solar cycles, how much by the interrelated enhanced submarine and subglacial vulcanisim and tectonics, that have just passed their peak of earth moon sun orbital parameter forcing, is unknown.

What we are sure of, is that a cooling climate cannot initiate a midlattitude glaciation stadia. Or "Ice age" as most refer to it as.
This would reduce atmospheric moisture and snowfall, and no tweaking of orbital parameters or axis tilt will stop the snow melting at midlattitude in summer. It melts quicker.

So yes. A stadial glaciation, or "dryas event" is the result of global warming.

 

[Classical Motion]

There is discrete EM and there is continuous EM. EM emissions from shell transitions are always discrete. However, objects can be heated to where the simple vibrations are sufficient to emanate EM waves. Those vibrations can be at any frequency. A continuous spectrum all the way up to gamma rays..

I think that there is a physical limit on the dynamic of vibration and/or oscillation. I believe that limit is somewhere in the x-ray range. This is a physical electrical limit. Due to density.

Mono pole emission is a rotational emission. Charge can and does rotate much, much faster than any vibration. Many multitudes quicker. And it's emission is more like a standard car transmission. When we use a clutch to change gears.

Every time the charge changes speeds(energy) and the clutch is let out an emission will occur. Whether up or down in gear. Every gear has it's own frequency. They are spin frequency rates....and only certain rates are possible. No mechanism for bandwidth. It's digital.

Oscillation and vibration is varied by gravity, acceleration and external fields. We use this character in MEMS devices to detect gravity, acceleration and external fields. Bandwidth. An analog scale.

Charge can not vary with gravity, acceleration and external fields in an analog manner. Only in steps. Discrete steps. No bandwidth. A digital scale.

If we used charge rotation, instead of oscillation for our clocks........you could realize omnipresent time.

Of course I'm sure no modern science would consider this.

 

[billslugg]

The physical limit to the speed at which a paticle can vibrate is the Planck Temperature, 1.4e32 Kelvins. No charged particle can vibrate any faster than that, which puts an upper limit on gamma ray energy.

 

[Classical Motion]

The proton wobbles. But the wobble rate is not the frequency of emission. The "wavelength" of the emission is the circumference of the rotation. That's where gamma comes from. The wobble rate...NOT an electrical oscillation, is multitudes and multitude higher than the rotation rate.

This fast wobble weaves the E field and M field together. Much faster than any emission frequency.

A vibration(oscillation) starts at zero motion. Then there is an acceleration in a direction. THEN there is a de-acceleration is the same direction. Then a stop motion. Now a complete reversal. Then another acceleration in the opposite direction. Another de-acceleration in that same direction. And at last another full stop. Rinse and repeat.

What a cluster. Look at all those directional changing rates. And full stops. All that takes lots of time.

A wobble is just a small variance in direction. A small variance produced by the E and M scissoring acceleration.

There can be thousands of wobbles in a gamma wavelength, but only the wavelength is emitted.

Wobbles super modulate. I call it that because I don't know what else to call it. It's the only example I know of, where the modulating frequencies are higher than the modulated signal.

It's like modulating at 10 MHz signal(rotational frequency), with a frequency of 100 MHz. Or 500 MHz. Wobble frequency.

But this modulation is an acceleration for a faster rotation and therefore smaller wavelength, not for encoding information. The number of wobbles....sets the rotation wavelength. Only certain numbers of wobbles are possible.

It will take decades and decades to pin down the real rpm(frequency) of a particle. It will take centuries to be able to measure a wobble rate.

Not so long to determine.....but that long to really measure. We need much faster switches and methods for physical measurement confirmation.

 

[Dunno]

Can someone please explain the effects of this on global warming?

https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/transfer-of-heat-energy

" Most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, and much of what reaches the Earth's surface is radiated back into the atmosphere to become heat energy."

Cause if the Sun is creating the "global warming" we are gonna need a heat shield in space, or just accept the fact that the climate changes periodically. Remember the " New Ice age is coming" proclamations from the 1970's? Boy were they wrong seeing how the sun is putting out more energy than scientists ever imagined.

The sun sends radiation to earth. Naturally it would be partially absorbed and transformed to heat energy or reflected back to space, depending on the Albedo of the surface. Now we have more and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere like carbondioxide, methane, nitrous oxide or ozone, emmitted by human pollution. these gases also absorb the radiation and reflect it back to the earth/ emit it in form of heat energy which leads to higher temperatures in the atmosphere and entrapment of radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. this effect is known for centuries and is widely used in greenhouses, where you usually have higher concentrations of co2 for higher temperatures and also more photosynthesis, which explains the name of the effect. Funfact: there was already a methane crisis before the industrialisation, because of the sheer amount of big mammals like us, horses and cows which lead to the development of combustion engines. now we're back at it again

 

[Dunno]

The title of this article is misleading as you only have 6 years of data....

it says ever recorded

 

[Joao Poco]

If I had a Geiger counter could I detect this event?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

You can detect the effects of cosmic radiation with a Geiger counter, but what you are detecting is the secondary radiation, which results from the cosmic rays (charged particles or photons) hitting atoms in the atmosphere and turning them into charged many particles traveling very fast.

What you could not do is detect that some of what hit your Geiger counter came from unusually high energy cosmic "rays". The way they determined that was, in effect, to have a huge detector that could tell how many secondary particles hit its large detection volume at the same time, so it could add up the total for a single event.

 

[billslugg]

This was not an event on the Sun, this has been going on forever. What just happened was they got their very first 6 year set of data from the first gamma ray detector with the abilility to detect the rays. They have always been there, we just could not detect them at such high energies because we had no such equipment.

 

[jim_robison]

Can someone please explain the effects of this on global warming?

https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/transfer-of-heat-energy

" Most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, and much of what reaches the Earth's surface is radiated back into the atmosphere to become heat energy."

Cause if the Sun is creating the "global warming" we are gonna need a heat shield in space, or just accept the fact that the climate changes periodically. Remember the " New Ice age is coming" proclamations from the 1970's? Boy were they wrong seeing how the sun is putting out more energy than scientists ever imagined.

The sun is not creating global warming. Man-made changes are causing the earth to retain more of the suns energy, thus warming the planet.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The sun is not creating global warming. Man-made changes are causing the earth to retain more of the suns energy, thus warming the planet.

Given the current special meanings of those words in popular media, today, I agree.

But, it is really more complicate than that.

It is energy from the Sun that makes Earth warm, otherwise it would be colder than Pluto. And long-term variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, plus the tilt of the Earth's axis relative to the plane of its orbit, plus wobbles in that axis direction. determine how much solar energy hits Earth at what latitudes and at what parts of the year. Those variations are cyclic, and are named after the person who first described them, Milankovitch.

But how much of that solar energy gets retained and how much gets reflected back into space is much more complicated, depending on the amounts of various gases in the atmosphere, the amount of particles of various types in the atmosphere, and the reflectivity of the surface, both the land and the oceans, particularly including snow/ice cover, but also vegetation cover and colors of rocks (or paving and roofs).

We know from geology that, for the last few million year, the Earth has been going through ice ages with short warm periods between them, We know that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere before this last few million years, and that the Earth was warmer when there was more CO2. We also know that CO2 has varied somewhat cyclically as the earth warmed and cooled during the ice age cycles. But, it takes some time for solar energy to melt glaciers, warm the deep ocean, etc. And, as different parts of the Earth get warmer or colder, the circulation patterns in the atmosphere and oceans change to distribute the incoming energy differently. And, CO2 seems to get released into the atmosphere naturally as the Earth warms, so cause vs effect is at issue in the geological records.

What we so far have not been able to model accurately is how all of those parameters, acting together, created the ice ages specifically as we see them in the geological records (a process known as "backcasting" to check on the accuracy of models). So, exactly what the Earth's natural state would be right now if humans had not messed with so many of the heat retention parameters is not really known very precisely. The modelers tend to over estimate how accurate their models are, and that gets amplified by political activists and the popular media to sound far more certain than it should from an objective scientific perspective.

What we do know, objectively, is that the Earth is getting warmer, and that the way that humans have affected the Earth is expected to create that effect. It is not just the CO2 concentrations, it includes other gases and particles, plus changes to the surface colors, vegetation and animal populations on the land and in the oceans,

We are in a period where we are continuously learning new things about how fast glaciers and ice caps can melt and how fast they did so in the past warm periods, how long those warm periods lasted at different cycles, how high the sea level has risen in past warm periods, how different circulation patterns may come about, etc. etc, etc., all of which play into our continuously improving ability to understand how Earth's climate behaves in the short term and the long term.

The consensus today is that humans are contributing substantially to earth getting warmer, and I agree with that. But, I am skeptical that we know enough to control Earth's temperatures to keep them in the range that humans have found most comfortable over the last several thousand years. Those conditions are not the natural average, they are warmer than the average over the last few million years, but cooler than the many more millions of years before the latest set of ice age cycles began a few million years ago.

So, back to what the Sun is doing. We know that it has some cyclic activity, too, and that its cycles affect the upper atmosphere of Earth. So far, it does not look like those cycles have much effect on the Earth's overall climate. But, Earth's climate seems to have a somewhat chaotic behavior (using the special mathematical meaning of the word) so that it tends to switch from one set of conditions to another rather rapidly, then stay in that condition for a while before switching back. Chaotic systems tend to be overly sensitive to some specific parameters such that small variations can lead to "tipping points" that cause large changes in the parameters from one sort of stable condition to another sort of stable condition.

There is a lot of discussion about tipping points that could affect the changes between ice ages and the short warm periods between them. And, there is still some lack of understanding about why the geological records of the ice age cycles don't seem to exactly match the Milankovitch Cycles, or why the ice ages were every 50,000 years until about 900,000 years ago, when they switched to every 100,000 years. The actual changes may (or may not) be associated with a combination of parameters that vary on different cycles needing to come together, and doing so at points in time that we do not yet predict properly because there are still some things we need to discover.

Whether or not there is any effect of solar cycles on ice age cycles is still open for debate, although it is not currently considered important by most climate scientists.

But, the recent discovery of unexpectedly high energy photons being emitted by the Sun does not seem relevant to the global warming issue. We have no reason to believe that those high energy photons have not been getting emitted for the billions of years that the Sun had been shining. We have just discovered them, so we have no scientific record about whether they vary with time, or if that has any significant effect on Earth if they do vary with time. But, they do not constitute the bulk of the Sun's energy that gets absorbed by Earth, so there is no reason to think they have any significant effect on climate, so far as we can currently tell.

 

[DReeeaM]

Even if we had records that were hundreds of years old that would probably still be insufficient in observing all the possible patterns for our star...