The sun is exactly where it should be!

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban


My common sense tells me that melting ice cannot be the cause for the sun coming two days early, in the time of one year, without it leaving a clear indicator of it being the cause of the phenomenon.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'clear indicator'.

Greenland has experienced unprecedented temperature rises in the past year alone (3 degrees celcius is the figure I have seen referenced). As the ice caps melt, the horizon 'sinks', allowing the sun to appear two days earlier.

SOURCES:

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.livescience.com...

So, yes, this is still a 'theory'. But 'theory' doesnt mean 'wild speculation'. It is the most likely theory based on all known evidence. The jury is still out, but no other plausible reasons have been offered. Do you have any?

"In a nutshell, there can't be a change in the true sunrise, because that would require the Earth-Sun orbital parameters to change," said John Walsh, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

The only other plausible explanation I have seen is that this is an optical illusion.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'clear indicator'.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I mean that the land betwwen the direction where the sun comes up, and the locations where people witnessed the sun rise two days early, must´ve sunk so dramatically that it would leave no doubt about wat caused the early sun.

At least, that´s what I would think. I find it strange that this theory is apparently not directly provable, as of yet.

Also, the sun has come up on that same day for centuries, in the past the snow and glaciers apparently have been higher than let´s say two years ago, did that make the sun come two days later?

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban

I'm not sure what you mean by 'clear indicator'.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I mean that the land betwwen the direction where the sun comes up, and the locations where people witnessed the sun rise two days early, must´ve sunk so dramatically that it would leave no doubt about wat caused the early sun.

you mean like this?:

cop15post.com...

At least, that´s what I would think. I find it strange that this theory is apparently not directly provable, as of yet.

Why is it strange? There are not armies of scientists just sitting around, bathing in money that they could otherwise be spending on research.

Also, the sun has come up on that same day for centuries, in the past the snow and glaciers apparently have been higher than let´s say two years ago, did that make the sun come two days later?

I think maybe you are not familiar with the extent of melting in Greenland. No amount of snowfall in the past could be compared to the amount of melting in that region over the past few years. Asking questions is reasonable, but grasping at straws is not.

Again, have you any competing theories to promote?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


No, not really, I just don´t understand why it´s not conclusive.

How much does it cost to draw a line from one of the locations towards the horizon where the sun comes up, calculate the angle and go and see if anything was blocking it in the past that has now sunk or melted.

They must know if a whole big slab of land sunk 1m.

Since they are already monitoring in Greenland, they should be able to know if this is the cause or not.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

No, not really, I just don´t understand why it´s not conclusive.

Then you don't understand the scientific process, and that it takes a long time to 'prove' something.

How much does it cost to draw a line from one of the locations towards the horizon where the sun comes up, calculate the angle and go and see if anything was blocking it in the past that has now sunk or melted.

I don't know. Why don't you fly up there are test out your theory?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


You know the whole point is that you were claiming this as fact, and these scientists maybe shouldn´t comment on this stuff before they can say something conclusive, instead of going for the most logical explanation and leaving it at that.

This was like 4, 5 months ago, seems enough time to do a job you say I could do if I just flew over there.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

You know the whole point is that you were claiming this as fact, and these scientists maybe shouldn´t comment on this stuff before they can say something conclusive, instead of going for the most logical explanation and leaving it at that.

Did I say it was a 'fact'? That was foolish of me. It's not a fact, it's the most logical theory so far put forward.

This was like 4, 5 months ago, seems enough time to do a job you say I could do if I just flew over there.

I did not say you could just fly up there and do it. You are the one contending these findings would be easy to prove out. I merely suggested if it was so easy, that maybe you should do it.

AGAIN, what other possible explanation are you offering? Pole shift as many on this thread contend?


*ETA: After looking at the post I made, no, I did not say it was 'fact', although i did imply it was the only plausible theory out, in direct response to someone who was saying it was due to pole shift. But indeed it is not proven. Just like many reasonable theories supported by overwhelming evidence.*

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

You know the whole point is that you were claiming this as fact

Actually, I was responding to the person who was implying that the 'fact' was that the poles had shifted.

, and these scientists maybe shouldn´t comment on this stuff before they can say something conclusive, instead of going for the most logical explanation and leaving it at that.

Hmmm, So you object to 'scientists' giving a logical explanation, and yet nary a peep from you in concern to all the armchair zOMGers claiming the poles have flipped. SERIOUSLY?

I did not say you could just fly up there and do it. You are the one contending these findings would be easy to prove out. I merely suggested if it was so easy, that maybe you should do it.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Jeah I misread.

AGAIN, what other possible explanation are you offering? Pole shift as many on this thread contend?

I don´t suscribe to any theory as of yet. My point was just that I expected that if these big melts caused the early sun, they would investigate and prove it and come up with the data, since it seems a rather important development.



When you mentioned it I thought perhaps there was some knew evidence, already heard the possible explanation months back.

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by bhornbuckle75

 

Remember when the Earths Wobbled just ,,slowed,,,and stopped,,,? if not go away,,

and it started backup again,, and no they dont know why,, Should get into the discussions at Yale , over that one,, lol of course MIT has all there fancy instruments,, but hey,, sorry,,, lol

especialy when someone introduced the the speculation that ,, the Super Nova Tyco that erupted in 1700 we have a picture of the incomming shockwave from space in 20?? what was that year again,,

they all went gimme,,gimme ,, gimmmee ,, lol

edit on 30-7-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

Well since the Earth's wobble takes 26,000 years I'm really not sure of what you are referring.....do you have a link? If sometime before the last wobble it stopped.....I'm not sure how we would know it...and that wouldn't really effect any man made large scale solar calendars since most of them are no more than 2000 years old anyway... Actually I'm fairly certain that it's only the position of the fixed stars that change, and not the position of the Sun that changes from our vantage point during the precision of the equinoxes (another name for the "wobble)...though if someone with an astronomy background can either back me up, or disprove that I'd be happy either way. My point is...even if the Precision of the Equinoxes effected where the Sun came up from our vantage point, it would take 2600 years for a 'wobble' to happen...I don't think that most of the Man Made structures I'm speaking of would be anywhere near old enough to be greatly effected by this (that's if they even would be anyway)

Also are you trying to suggest that the Super Nova Tyco eruption would be able to move the Earth?!?! Um...no...it wouldn't. You would have to throw away physics as we know it for such a far away object to physically effect the orbit of a planet...even if just a few degrees...it's simply not possible.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban


I don´t suscribe to any theory as of yet. My point was just that I expected that if these big melts caused the early sun, they would investigate and prove it and come up with the data, since it seems a rather important development.

It's not an 'important development'. Its a side note to an important development which HAS been widely studied, which is that greenlands glaciers are melting at an incredibly fast pace.

I do suspect some are looking into it, but as I've mentioned several times, that takes time and money.eel free to contribute either if you feel it so 'important'.

reply to post by Cyanhide


You still miss the point I see.

First I never claimed this to be scientific fact.

I called it verifiable, hard data.

it's verifiable because if you really wanted to, you could go to Stonehenge yourself and watching the sun set during Summer solstice.

You could go to Manhattan yourself and watch the sun set between the buildings.

And you can make a solargraph to document the suns track through the sky every day.

Verifiable data.

You don't need science and multiples of sources when common sense is enough.

Speaking of science, where is the scientific data to show the sun isn't where it's supposed to be?

Surely there must be something scientific out there, otherwise you wouldn't be carrying on about how my thread isn't scientific, right?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I would call it an important development, the sun coming two days early after being there on one day for centuries, indicates a major change, wich would seem important to study for the people involved.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Hey Chadmeister , don't stare at the sun for too long ....

you'll go blind

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I would call it an important development, the sun coming two days early after being there on one day for centuries, indicates a major change, wich would seem important to study for the people involved.

Well, then perhaps you should do something towards proving or disproving it since you appear so dissatisfied with the most plausible theory put forward thus far.

Or, just ask pedestrian questions while offering no possible alternative. Your choice.

Well, then perhaps you should do something towards proving or disproving it since you appear so dissatisfied with the most plausible theory put forward thus far.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I´m not so much dissatified with the threory, but more with the lack off follow up, so far, again, I think it should be easy to prove what exactly happened.

Do you have a problem with my dissatisfaction?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
The jury is still out, but no other plausible reasons have been offered.

The other plausible reason is one I described back on page 3.
A reason that is easily and often observed, well studied and so well known that it was named 400 years ago and even has its own wikipedia page.
wiki

And just a follow up on my previous post, I found some comments by someone who actually lives in Greenland.
link

Summary:
- The sun is expected to rise on the 13th of January at ilulissat.
- The sun rose on the 11th of January.
- The sun did NOT rise on the 12th
- The sun rose half an hour late on the 13th.
- There are no glaciers in the way, so the theory about shrinking glaciers fails.

The obvious answer is the one that has been known and observed for hundreds of years.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


If you read the link Alfa1 posted and the comments below, it becomes more and more clear that the melting glacier story is total hogwash, frankly it was quite obviously lacking from the beginning as I have been pointing out to you.

Just goes to show that scientist only have to call it the most logical explanation, and seemingly intelligent people accept it as truth without thinking twice about it.

reply to post by alfa1


Good find.

“A week before its scheduled reappearance in Barrow on Sunday after two months of Arctic night, the sun appeared to rise above the horizon for a time, and photos at The Arctic Sounder seem to confirm it. But Dave Anderson of the National Weather Service office in Barrow explained it was all an illusion: A layer of cold air along the ground acted like a lens or mirror, bending light over the horizon so that it seemed the sun had risen.” Read more:

www.adn.com...

Apparently this happened in other locations.

I find it strange that after centuries of exact timing, optical illusions are now causing these anamolies all of a sudden.