Cosmic Rays, especially X-Rays, The Solar System is Receiving Have been Increasing

originally posted by: choos
...
you labelled the 10^-7 correct, but you labelled the dotted lines incorrectly it should be:
20^-7, 30^-7, 40^-7... 90^-7 then 100^-7 or 10^-6

so in other words that brown line should be x0^-7, orange as x0^-6 and blue x0^-5 etc.

I did not label the "dotted lines incorrectly"...

You do know they are using a decimal system, which is why they are using as a base the number "10"?
The negative numbers you see to the right of the decimal system is telling you how many decimal points you have to move the point. Negative means it's moving in decimal points to the left, while positive tells you how many decimals is moving to the right.

So if you see 10^-1 It means you have to move the point by 10 to the left. So if it is an M5 and you see 10^-4 w/m^2. It means the point has to be moved to the left 4 decimal places. Since it was an M5 flare then it is read as a 0.0005 w/m^2

So your claim that it should be "20 ^-7, 30 ^-7, or 40^-7" makes no sense whatsoever.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

The peak of 5x10^-5 W/m^2 falls between 10^-5 and 10^-4 W/m^2 which is what makes it an M class, so that's definitely not 5x10^-4 W/m^2 as EU is saying.

Look, it's not my problem anymore if you don't want to admit you made a mistake. Yes, an M5 flare tells you the overall energy of the flare, but the plotted data shows you where it falls. M5 falls between a 10^-5 and 10^-4 w/m^2. If it was an M5 with 10^-5 w/m^2 like you claim it is, it would fall EXACTLY on the bottom of the M flare class, and that flare is not at the bottom of the M5 class. It is almost going to the top, which makes it an 0.0005 w/m^2 or an M5 10^4 w/m^2.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Look, it's not my problem anymore if you don't want to admit you made a mistake. Yes, an M5 flare tells you the overall energy of the flare, but the plotted data shows you where it falls. M5 falls between a 10^-5 and 10^-4 w/m^2.

You have contradicted yourself with that statement because that means more precisely 1x10^-5 and 1x10^-4 w/m^2 and since 5x10^-4 w/m^2 is outside of that range, it's not an M-class flare, in fact it has 5 times the peak energy of the most powerful M-class flare which would only have 1x10^-4 W/m^2.

If it was an M5 with 10^-5 w/m^2 like you claim it is, it would fall EXACTLY on the bottom of the M flare class

No the bottom if the M-class flare category would be 1 x 10^-5 W/m^2. The top is 1x10^-4 W/m^2. 5 x 10^-5 W/m^2 is in between those two so it's sort of in the middle of the M-class range though on a logarithmic scale like the graph we've been looking at, 5 looks closer to the top end of the range and not exactly in the middle.

It is almost going to the top, which makes it an 0.0005 w/m^2 or an M5 10^4 w/m^2.

Again you've contradicted yourself here. That is 5 times more powerful than the top of the range you just provided when you said " M5 falls between a 10^-5 and 10^-4 w/m^2. " 5x10^-4 w/m^2 is NOT between a 10^-5 and 10^-4 w/m^2, I don't know how you can not understand this, but I guess you're not good with numbers or math, not that you should need to be to understand such a simple concept. And again 5x10-4 W/m^2 falls clearly into the X-class of the table I posted, it wouldn't be an M-class flare.

Take this to a math teacher if you still don't get it, maybe they can explain it in a way you'll understand since you don't follow the explanation by choos and myself, but I really don't understand why.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

I did not label the "dotted lines incorrectly"...

sorry but you definitely did label it incorrectly.

the way you have labelled it, it is jumping from 1x10^-7 to 2x10^-6 in a single dot.. then the next dot will be 3x10^-6, when it reaches 9x10^-6 it then jumps back down to 1x10^-6 so on and so on.. its a mess.

here fixed the labelling for you:

originally posted by: choos
here fixed the labelling for you:

That's definitely better than ElectricUniverse's labeling, but 10^-5 is actually a single value on the graph and it was already labeled. If you want to label a range which is apparently what you're trying to do then a lower and upper limit is needed of the range, so you could label the ranges like this:

B-burgundy band from 1.000x10^-7 to 9.999x10^-7
C-orange band from 1.000x10^-6 to 9.999x10^-6
M-blue band the range of 1.000x10^-5 to 9.999x10^-5

As you said the red line at 10^-7 has always been correct so I don't know why ElectricUniverse gets that but doesn't get the others work the same way, meaning a line at 10^-6 corresponds to exactly 10^-6 (aka 1 x 10^-6) and so on.

You were right about that flare being 10^-5 w/m^2. But you are wrong in your claims that cosmic rays cannot affect the climate. You are also ignoring the fact that the Sun's visible light has been increasing and has been warming Earth's Troposphere which is something that was not expected.

Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.

Normally when the sun's activity lowers, all it's overall activity lowers which would normally lead to a cooling cycle, such as what happened during the Maunder Minimum. But this time we are seeing the sun reacting strangely. The amount of soft x-rays the sun is emitting is higher than it should be, and it's visible light is also higher and have been warming Earth's Troposphere. The only thing different this time around, from what happened during the LIA, is that the entire solar system seems to be reacting to this new region of space our solar system is entering. But you want to dismiss this out of hand when Earth is not the only planet being affected, and most planets and moons with an atmosphere in our solar system are undergoing climate change in the form of warming.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
You were right about that flare being 10^-5 w/m^2.

Finally!

But you are wrong in your claims that cosmic rays cannot affect the climate. You are also ignoring the fact that the Sun's visible light has been increasing and has been warming Earth's Troposphere which is something that was not expected.

Technically I didn't exactly say that "cosmic rays cannot affect the climate". What I said was increasing soft X-rays from 5x10^-7 W/m^2 to 100 times that or even 1000 times that to 5x10^-4 W/m^2 is a measurable but not a significant amount compared to 1366 W/m^2, do you disagree with that?

I also posited though I never proved that I would expect that similarly, the net effect of cosmic rays likely doesn't amount to much compared to 1366 W/m^2, but I'm not claiming the effect would be zero. I also gave you a link to research suggesting that an increase in cosmic rays could actually have a cooling effect on climate instead of a heating effect because they might increase cloud formation, though I don't really have any expert opinion on the validity of that research and I think even some experts are a little uncertain and don't have the climate models perfected yet.

Over the long term the sun's energy output will increase until all the water in all the oceans on earth will boil away and all surface life will die, maybe in a billion years or so. On shorter term scales we haven't been making precision measurements of the sun's output for that long so I doubt we understand all the solar cycles and things like the maunder minimum.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

First of all, I do make mistakes, more so if I keep writing late/early in the day. Second of all, I do disagree with you when we see other changes occur to Earth at the same time yet you want to ignore them.

From the increase in geothermal heating in our oceans which are warming our oceans, and are thawing glaciers, the global increase in seismicity, the Earth's magnetic field weakening, and other changes Earth and the entire solar system are undergoing. These are factors mankind has no control over and affect Earth's climate as well as the climate and geology of other planets and moons.

I'll give you a hint. All the factors that affect Earth, it's climate and geology cannot be quantified in an equation because there are too many factors to take in consideration.
Why is it that the majority of GCMs are so wrong?

You can make up ANY equation and change the data anyway you want and you can make the data look like whatever you want because all factors that affect Earth and it's climate are not accounted for.

The fallacy of AGW is to claim that "we know with 97% certainty that mankind causes Climate Change" because it is a lie.

As for your mentioning of the maunder minimum. The fact that the sun is now reacting differently than it did during the maunder minimum should tell you there is something else changing the sun which in turn affects all planets including Earth.

If you only looked at some of the theories that have even surfaced from our own U.S. Navy scientists as to what could be causing these changes in the solar system, you might think twice about this.

We have scientists thinking it could be possible that gravitational waves are causing these changes in the solar system.

For all we know, the increase in interstellar dust the solar system has been encountering could have some remnants of gravitational wave energy embedded in the dust that could be causing these changes our solar system, including our sun, are undergoing.

solarprobe.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Cosmic Dust, Refraction and Emissivity
Frank H. Makinson*

Abstract—Cosmic dust is pervasive within our galaxy and it is reasonable to suspect it is dispersed in various ways
throughout the universe. Cosmic dust has emissivity when exposed to electromagnetic energy sources. The emissivity of cosmic dust contributes to cosmic radio noise and concentrations of it alters electromagnetic waves by refraction. Cosmic dust is concentrated in our Sun’s heliosphere and the resultant emissivity products in the micro-wave and infrared should be detectable by land based and satellite radio telescope instruments. It is possible that many of the claimed microwave and infrared measurements of the universe have in part or their entirety mapped the energy patterns of the cosmic dust in the heliosphere rather than energy patterns beyond it.
...

vixra.org...

For all we know, we have been encountering remnants of dark energy in the new region of the interstellar cloud the solar system is entering.

We simply do not know exactly what is causing these changes, but these are changes the entire solar system is undergoing.

Don't you find it a bit too much of a coincidence that at the same time Earth has been warming, we see almost every other planet also undergoing dramatic climate changes and in the form of warming just like Earth?

...
"By analyzing both sets of data together, we could get a more definitive picture of what's going on than we could with either dataset alone," said Charles Lawrence, the U.S. project scientist for Planck at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. "The joint analysis shows that much of the signal detected by BICEP2/Keck is coming from dust in the Milky Way, but we cannot rule out a gravitational wave signal at a low level. This is a good example of how progress is made in science, one step at a time."
...

www.nasa.gov...

For second time, LIGO detects gravitational waves Signal was produced by two black holes colliding 1.4 billion light years away.

Small changes occurring to the sun at a time when Earth's magnetic field keeps weakening, can have big consequences to Earth's climate. A time when we are receiving more interstellar dust, and cosmic rays can, and do influence Earth's climate and geology.

But we don't have all the answers. If we did GCMs would be more accurate, yet they are not. If we had all the answers we wouldn't need to make "best estimates" and we would not have to keep on coming with new theories to describe what we are observing.

Our sun seems to be reacting to something that is within this new region of space we are encountering, and it's changing not only Earth, but other planets and moons as well.

Here is an example of how little we know because our instruments have not been recording all the energy our sun has been emitting.

NEW OBSERVATIONS OF THE SOLAR 0.5 – 5 KEV SOFT X-RAY SPECTRUM

AMIR CASPI1,3, THOMAS N. WOODS1, and HARRY P. WARREN2
1 Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80303, USA

2 Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375, USA
Received 2014 October 28; accepted 2015 January 23; published 2015 March 18
ABSTRACT

The solar corona is orders of magnitude hotter than the underlying photosphere, but how the corona attains such
high temperatures is still not understood. Soft X-ray (SXR) emission provides important diagnostics for thermal processes in the high-temperature corona, and is also an important driver of ionospheric dynamics at Earth. There is a crucial observational gap between ∼0.2 and ∼4 keV, outside the ranges of existing spectrometers. We present observations from a new SXR spectrometer, the Amptek X123-SDD, which measured the spatially integrated solar spectral irradiance from ∼0.5 to ∼5 keV, with ∼0.15 keV FWHM resolution, during sounding rocket flights on 2012 June 23 and 2013 October 21. These measurements show that the highly variable SXR emission is orders of magnitude greater than that during the deep minimum of 2009, even with only weak activity. The observed spectra show significant high-temperature(5–10 MK) emission and are well fit by simple power-law temperature distributions with indices of ∼6, close to the predictions of nano flare models of coronal heating. Observations during the more active 2013 flight indicate an enrichment of low first-ionization potential elements of only ∼1.6, below the usually observed value of ∼4, suggesting that abundance variations may be related to coronal heating processes. The XUV Photometer System Level 4 data product, a spectral irradiance model derived from integrated broadband measurements, significantly overestimates the spectra from both flights, suggesting a need for revision of its non-flare reference spectra, with important implications for studies of Earth ionospheric dynamics driven by solar SXRs.

Key words:plasmas–radiation mechanisms: thermal–Sun: corona–Sun: X-rays, gamma-rays
...

www.ssl.berkeley.edu...

The biggest fallacy of mankind is to try to claim we have all the answers, because we simply don't have them.

Look at what the new instruments has been showing about the activity in our sun which goes against everything we thought about our sun.



www.ssl.berkeley.edu...

Isn't it too much of a coincidence that at almost the same time our sun's activity lowered to a crawl around 2005, global temperatures stopped increasing as much as AGW scientists claimed CO2 would raise temperatures?