Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,612
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Vesuvius
    Newest Member
    Vesuvius
    Joined

An unusual atmospheric vapor layer


calm_days
 Share

Recommended Posts

There is a direct climate change context to this, however, we are not really sure what to call it because it was too dramatic to describe to the public (that is how it seems anyway?). 

To take a guess, perhaps lots of water vapor entered higher stages of the atmosphere and stayed there, changing the behavior of light passing through it.  I am interested in what anyone here thinks it could be! 

People have been noticing this since at least 2010 if not earlier, that the daytime sun became very bright-looking, with the light splaying out in all directions, resulting in a fairly large amorphous shape in the sky, and definitely no longer had a yellow appearance (but the color as well as shape of the sun in most weather forecast graphics has stayed the same.) 

The phenomenon, whatever it specifically is, can always be seen during the full moon as well: a clear and wide circle of light (not a moon halo) surrounding it expands fairly far from the center and then eventually stops. 

It's possible that this change has happened in ancient times of hotter climates as well.  it doesn't seem to be on the level of a climate disaster, but it does seem to at least resemble an effect of climate change.

  • Like 2
  • Weenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Interesting. I never thought about that until you posted. Do you think increased aerosols is a contributing factor?

I have a related but different question.  Is the true color of the sun actually white?  We use daytime white balance in our cameras and theoretically at least, that should make the sun white, but it isn't.  And in the H-R stellar classification system A type stars like Sirius and Vega are considered white (B-V index is actually calibrated on the latter, at 0.0).....but the sun is a G type star and those are considered yellow.  So is this the actual color of the sun as seen from space?  I figured that evolution would lean towards sunlight being white for maximum efficiency (and this should also be the case for life that develops on planets that orbit different types of stars-- for example life that evolves on planets that orbit M-type "red" stars should detect their sun's light as white), but for whatever reason our sun's light seems yellow, so maybe evolution has not triggered our vision for maximum efficiency?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I have a related but different question.  Is the true color of the sun actually white?  We use daytime white balance in our cameras and theoretically at least, that should make the sun white, but it isn't.  And in the H-R stellar classification system A type stars like Sirius and Vega are considered white (B-V index is actually calibrated on the latter, at 0.0).....but the sun is a G type star and those are considered yellow.  So is this the actual color of the sun as seen from space?  I figured that evolution would lean towards sunlight being white for maximum efficiency (and this should also be the case for life that develops on planets that orbit different types of stars-- for example life that evolves on planets that orbit M-type "red" stars should detect their sun's light as white), but for whatever reason our sun's light seems yellow, so maybe evolution has not triggered our vision for maximum efficiency?

 

Yes, our Sun is actually white. The depiction of being yellow (or orange or red) comes from the scattering properties of our atmosphere. The long wavelengths (violet, indigo and blue) get scattered more than the yellows, oranges or reds hence the Sun just *looks* that color especially around sunrise or sunset when it is seen through the most atmosphere. Get out in space and she is a bright white blob. And the G2V rating is in reference to how *hot* it is. Around 5600K to 5800K. It is a measure of the solar flux or how fast and how much material is being converted while on the main sequence. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bowtie` said:

Yes, our Sun is actually white. The depiction of being yellow (or orange or red) comes from the scattering properties of our atmosphere. The long wavelengths (violet, indigo and blue) get scattered more than the yellows, oranges or reds hence the Sun just *looks* that color especially around sunrise or sunset when it is seen through the most atmosphere. Get out in space and she is a bright white blob. And the G2V rating is in reference to how *hot* it is. Around 5600K to 5800K. It is a measure of the solar flux or how fast and how much material is being converted while on the main sequence. 

So the depiction of a star like Sirius or Vega (A type stars) as being white and 0.0 on the B-V index can't be correct can it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2022 at 3:11 AM, LibertyBell said:

So the depiction of a star like Sirius or Vega (A type stars) as being white and 0.0 on the B-V index can't be correct can it?

 

The keyword here is depiction. And it can be correct. But it is just that, a depiction. It is using a sliver of the visible spectrum against the whole visible spectrum to calculate the temperature of the star. Now humans have used color as a descriptor for the amount of heat for eons. It is kind of an ingrained bias. So the color index does just that. Calculates that a massive start that has more mass will make more heat (10,000K) so we will call it blue because it is on the high side of the visible spectrum. Our Sun while still large but more of medium size will not be as warm (5800K) so we will call it yellow. And a small star will not have as much mass and be cooler yet (3000K) so we will call it red. The thing is put all three stars at a distance where the flux is the same as the Earth is to the Sun and all three will look white in the visible spectrum as long as all three are still in the main sequence.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bowtie` said:

The keyword here is depiction. And it can be correct. But it is just that, a depiction. It is using a sliver of the visible spectrum against the whole visible spectrum to calculate the temperature of the star. Now humans have used color as a descriptor for the amount of heat for eons. It is kind of an ingrained bias. So the color index does just that. Calculates that a massive start that has more mass will make more heat (10,000K) so we will call it blue because it is on the high side of the visible spectrum. Our Sun while still large but more of medium size will not be as warm (5800K) so we will call it yellow. And a small star will not have as much mass and be cooler yet (3000K) so we will call it red. The thing is put all three stars at a distance where the flux is the same as the Earth is to the Sun and all three will look white in the visible spectrum as long as all three are still in the main sequence.

Good point, so color is actually more of a matter of perception rather than an objective reality.

Interesting when we take pictures of the night sky, how much care we need to take so the colors of stars dont get blown out and we can bring out what we perceive as color.

Other creatures-- like bees-- can see beyond what we can see.  Bees can see UV markings on flowers, which we can also capture with a UV pass filter.  I wonder what color appears to the bee as-- just a more violet version of violet?

There are mantis shrimp that whose vision is equipped to handle up to 12-16 primary colors-- it's quite amazing.... and they can detect polarized light to boot!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp#Eyes

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 1/6/2022 at 9:15 AM, bdgwx said:

Interesting. I never thought about that until you posted. Do you think increased aerosols is a contributing factor?

After posting i saw that some explanations online were that there have been some changes in the amount of the ozone layer, which scatters the light depending on its fullness, that previously the daytime sun would have looked more yellowish to people.  To address the mention of the actual sun changing, no!!  I don't think that has happened, it is some sort of atmospheric variation that changes how all light passing through it will appear from below!

it may relate to this phenomenon, although this study doesn't specifically mention anything about any trapped water vapor becoming a very translucent layer of clouds etc!!

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/1299/Water-vapor-in-the-upper-atmosphere-amplifies-global-warming-says-new-study

few.png

National Weather Service has always had the sun's color as more of a clear white, which is reassuring, it looked like this for a long time, but then, a few days after posting the thread, i tried looking more closely at the sun and it had yellow hues in the light, more than i remembered, but still becoming a very bright and huge blob.  my guess is that the sheer brightness had kept me from looking at it as directly, and that some days due to ozone variation it did appear more clear white!

here is how a present-day version of the above graphic would appear, with an attempt to present the current welcome yellowishness. :)

218629178_accuweath!!.jpg.c42c7117c2ad2dd5a1b2d4841208e2d1.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2022 at 10:04 AM, skierinvermont said:

Bump

Even if it does change so what?  Everything in nature is dynamic, nothing is static.  Maybe he's talking about the sunspot cycle and changes in how the sun looks (or maybe even solar storms?)  There is documentation from history that the sun's appearance has changed during historic solar storms.

 

https://www.livescience.com/ancient-solar-storm-solar-minimum

 

An extremely powerful solar storm pummeled our planet 9,200 years ago, leaving permanent scars on the ice buried deep below Greenland and Antarctica.

 

A new study of those ancient ice samples has found that this previously unknown storm is one of the strongest outbursts of solar weather ever detected and would have crippled modern communications systems if it had hit Earth today.

 

But perhaps most surprising, the massive storm appears to have hit during a solar minimum, the point during the sun's 11-year cycle when solar outbursts are typically much less common, according to the study, published Jan. 11 in the journal Nature Communications. Because of this unexpected discovery, the study researchers are concerned that devastating solar storms could hit when we least expect them — and that Earth might not be prepared when the next big one arrives.

 

Further analysis of the cores showed that the storm was particularly powerful — perhaps on a par with the most powerful solar storm ever detected, which occurred during a solar maximum between the years 775 B.C. and 774 B.C.

 

The newly discovered storm's occurrence during a solar minimum, when magnetic activity on the sun should be low, left the study authors puzzled and alarmed.

"This [storm] further pushes the magnitude of a potential worst-case scenario for [solar storm] events," the researchers wrote in the study.

According to the study authors, it is now essential for researchers to detect more ancient, extreme storms in the ice-core and tree-ring records, to determine if there is some sort of pattern beyond the sun's 11-year cycle that dictates when the most extreme storms will occur.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is incredible stuff

https://www.21stcentech.com/charlemagne-event-774-775-ad-caused-solar-storm/

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05883-1

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/774–775_carbon-14_spike

 

Several possible causes of the event have been considered.

Annus Domini (the year of the Lord) 774. This year the Northumbrians banished their king, Alred, from York at Easter-tide; and chose Ethelred, the son of Mull, for their lord, who reigned four winters. This year also appeared in the heavens a red crucifix, after sunset; the Mercians and the men of Kent fought at Otford; and wonderful serpents were seen in the land of the South-Saxons.

The "red crucifix" recorded by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has been variously hypothesised to have been a supernova[9] or the aurora borealis.[2][10]

In China, there is only one clear reference to an aurora in the mid-770s, namely the one on 12 January 776.[11][12] Instead, an anomalous "thunderstorm" was recorded for 775.[13]

The common paradigm is that the event was caused by a solar particle event (SPE), or a consequence of events as often happen, from a very strong solar flare, perhaps the strongest ever known but still within the Sun's abilities.[2][7][14][15][16] According to a summary of the state of knowledge on radiocarbon dating in 2020, the spike is thought to have been caused by an extreme SPE.[3] Another discussed scenario of the event origin, involving a gamma-ray burst,[8][17] appears unlikely, because the event was also observed in isotopes 10
Be
and 36
Cl
.[16]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

That's not the point. The fact is that the suns color has not changed. This is a science forum and requires proof (far) beyond anecdotal accounts from memory.

Yeah I understand and the sun's spectral type is G2 and that's not going to change for millions of years, I think that should be enough for people to realize that the sun's basic color doesn't change lol.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

That's not the point. The fact is that the suns color has not changed. This is a science forum and requires proof (far) beyond anecdotal accounts from memory.

What do you think of the mega solar flare stuff by the way?  Do you think the sun noticeably changed during those historic events (as in, people could notice changes in it with their own eyes?)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 5:52 PM, skierinvermont said:

That's not the point. The fact is that the suns color has not changed. This is a science forum and requires proof (far) beyond anecdotal accounts from memory.

Yes :):)   I would be glad to continue to edit my posts to remove anything that you consider to be too egregious!!  just tell me which phrases to change!  My initial instict in calling the thread "why is the sun still yellow in weather forecast graphics" wasn't correct because it did imply a change of the sun itself as opposed to an atmospheric optical phenomenon.  needless to say i prefer it the way it is now!

i am the opposite of a conspiritist! :) :) To this day I still wish that meteorological and aeronautical organizations acted together with a massive public information campaign to disprove the you-know-what-trail conspiracy by explaining outright that the atmospheric conditions have changed and that is why contrail dynamics visibly changed. 

it's possible that they were and are under pressure from industries that do not want people walking outside every day and knowing that they are seeing the direct results of climate change, but, i also find that hard to believe that NOAA, NASA, any and every science organization with purview relative to the atmosphere and weather, could have been pressured by industries that way.

Without direct information from them, i consider it to be a reasonable extrapolation that the increase in and change in dynamics of persistent contrails is a result of increased atmospheric methane which also increased atmospheric water vapor.  

There is a reason why these clouds were not already in the atlas, they are a result of the present day atmospheric conditions!   

https://cloudatlas.wmo.int/en/homomutatus.html
 

Online-mu.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, calm_days said:

Yes :):)   I would be glad to continue to edit my posts to remove anything that you consider to be too egregious!!  just tell me which phrases to change!  My initial instict in calling the thread "why is the sun still yellow in weather forecast graphics" wasn't correct because it did imply a change of the sun itself as opposed to an atmospheric optical phenomenon.  needless to say i prefer it the way it is now!

i am the opposite of a conspiritist! :) :) To this day I still wish that meteorological and aeronautical organizations acted together with a massive public information campaign to disprove the you-know-what-trail conspiracy by explaining outright that the atmospheric conditions have changed and that is why contrail dynamics visibly changed. 

it's possible that they were and are under pressure from industries that do not want people walking outside every day and knowing that they are seeing the direct results of climate change, but, i also find that hard to believe that NOAA, NASA, any and every science organization with purview relative to the atmosphere and weather, could have been pressured by industries that way.

Without direct information from them, i consider it to be a reasonable extrapolation that the increase in and change in dynamics of persistent contrails is a result of increased atmospheric methane which also increased atmospheric water vapor.  

There is a reason why these clouds were not already in the atlas, they are a result of the present day atmospheric conditions!   

https://cloudatlas.wmo.int/en/homomutatus.html
 

Online-mu.jpg

It would be a lot better if we stopped polluting our atmosphere by flying all those airplanes

That sky in your picture looks like a dumpster to me, full of trashy human excrements

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help me understand.

I've seen zero evidence that any kind of climate change has impacted the formation of contrails. 

We do have a lot more jets flying around, dumping lots of CO2 and water vapor from their engines.

So there are many more contrails, but does climate change affects that?

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am glad to have a new anecdote about this phenomenon!!  Yesterday i was outside and held up my finger to cover the sun, and much of the light was blocked!!

Today going outside, when i block the same amount of the sun with my finger, there is still a large circular glowing area surrounding it just abou less than three times the length of the sun.  In checking the water vapor satellite imagery, the amount of water vapor measured in that level of the atmosphere is much lower here today than it was yesterday.

So, there is some medium in the atmosphere somewhere that the sunlight is shining through that scatters the light long before it reaches the eyes, and its extent does change from day to day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2022 at 6:31 PM, etudiant said:

Help me understand.

I've seen zero evidence that any kind of climate change has impacted the formation of contrails. 

We do have a lot more jets flying around, dumping lots of CO2 and water vapor from their engines.

So there are many more contrails, but does climate change affects that?

There was a lot of research done in the 1990s about contrails and climate!!  The main one i'm aware of is called the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project.  https://web.archive.org/web/20000520093129/http://hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov/AEAP/AEAP.html

The correlation between increased methane, water vapor, and thus more material for contrails to persist and evolve may or may not yet have been explored directly in research, but, it does make sense.  The formation of cirrus and cirruform clouds has changed quite a lot

To answer LibertyBell's, i also could react negatively sometimes to the strange and unfamiliar shapes of the clouds, but lately i have a feeling that all of this possibly including the layer i've noticed may be part of an effortful attempt to manage climate feedback loops.  this couldn't be announced to the public for, i am assuming here, many reasons.  But, the efforts could still be made.  Again i had long puzzled over the seemingly displeasing appearance of some of these types of clouds until realizing that it would be the more pure cloud types that would result in various types of runaway feedback.  

There is this sense that the clouds which look unattractive to us may be helping to prevent certain kinds of feedback loops, eg. that they are asymmetrical!  Remember how recently we have been experiencing during tropical season what are often called "halfcanes"??  Maybe it is a key part of that. 

Heat domes also seem to have some relevance to this discussion but i will just mention them for now in case someone else wants to discuss them, research, and come back soon!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Stormfly said:

Conventional (CMYK) printing wouldn't work with black media. ;)

works fine with white media ;-)

that inspired an idea I had about the universe and primary colors.... if space is built on the canvas of time we can consider time to be black (it's arrow anyway) and the three spatial dimensions are RGB the additive primary colors.  You could have an equal and opposite universe with a reverse arrow of time (white) where the spatial dimensions would correspond to CMY the subtractive primary colors.  The arrow of time for all denizens in each universe would be forward for them (because they are "facing" the direction time moves, like being on a conveyor belt and facing the direction of movement) and it's the other universe that seems opposite.  It explains why the universe is expanding because it only appears that way, because the other universe would appear to be contracting, so in effect the same total size is always maintained (like yin/yang).  Further expanded upon this into a cyclic model of Big Bounce with expansion contraction cycles for the universe and its antiverse, divided by a barrier of light (luxon wall), because to the other universe we would seem tachyonic (going faster than light) and vice versa, with light forming the boundary between both universes (this could also have connections to the holographic principle and the boundary storing all the information contained in the bulk, where we live and for the antibulk on "the other side" too.)-- sort of like a bifurcated black hole inside an even larger universe with light keeping the two opposite universes apart and storing all their info on each side at the same time (like a double sided cosmic DVD.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...