Our Sun

[Maxmars]

You all seem to be a good group to pose a question.

Ii get that the movement of the "vault of the heavens" depends on the 
framework from which we measure it.

So if the Earth is inconsistent in it's relative movement, we need to know it.

But what about the "contents" of the Earth, shifting and sloshing about, albeit slowly.

Wouldn't that also affect how we (the observers) "move" so to speak?

[quintessentone]

You all seem to be a good group to pose a question.

Ii get that the movement of the "vault of the heavens" depends on the 
framework from which we measure it.

So if the Earth is inconsistent in it's relative movement, we need to know it.

But what about the "contents" of the Earth, shifting and sloshing about, albeit slowly.

Wouldn't that also affect how we (the observers) "move" so to speak?

I'm just scanning science sources and what I am seeing are people calling anything having to do with different shifting of mass scenarios as bunk science.

Is it bunk science when mass/weight shifts around the world? Could it not affect the planet's rotational spin then it's axis position due to wobbling?

NASA-Funded Studies Explain How Climate Is Changing Earth’s Rotation - NASA

The paper: 

"Mass redistribution on the Earth’s surface—for example, ice melting and global changes in water storage—yields a relatively weak trend but explains about 90% of the interannual and multidecadal variations. We also find that core processes contribute to both the secular trend and fluctuations in polar motion, either due to variations in torque at the core–mantle boundary or dynamical feedback of the core in response to surface mass changes. Our findings provide constraints on core–mantle interactions for which observations are rare and global ice mass balance over the past century and suggest feedback operating between climate-related surface processes and core dynamics."

Contributions of core, mantle and climatological processes to Earth’s polar motion | Nature Geoscience

"The fluctuations include a quasi-periodic signal with a typical timescale of approximately 30 years, often referred to as the Markowitz wobble[sup]9[/sup]. The driving mechanisms of the secular trend and long-period fluctuations over the entirety of the observational record are not fully understood and are the focus of our study."

"However, other processes can also contribute considerably to the secular trend. These include mantle convection (MC)[sup]15,16,17[/sup] and climate-change-induced land–ocean mass exchanges, in particular the melting of mountain glaciers and polar ice sheets, depletion of the terrestrial water storage (TWS) and associated rise of sea levels[sup]15,18[/sup]. Coseismic and interseismic deformations have also been shown to contribute to a small part of the trend."

---------

Perhaps this Markowitz wobble lasting 30 years may explain what the Inuit elders are witnessing.

---------

"However, the degree to which the core contributes to the observed fluctuations in polar motion is difficult to quantify."

(Maybe that's why some are calling this bunk science?)

There is a lot going on just with Earth's processes alone, now add to that planetary gravitational processes and our sun's dynamics.

[quintessentone]

I've had nothing but clouds for days and days now.   I hope some of you get to see it.

[BeyondKnowledge]

We are off topic. If you want to discuss Earth's rotational shifting axis please make a new thread.

Funny how you are now discussing the Earth's axis woble and possible displacement but you did not want to discuss that.

[BeyondKnowledge]

I'm just scanning science sources and what I am seeing are people calling anything having to do with different shifting of mass scenarios as bunk science.

Is it bunk science when mass/weight shifts around the world? Could it not affect the planet's rotational spin then it's axis position due to wobbling?

NASA-Funded Studies Explain How Climate Is Changing Earth’s Rotation - NASA

The paper: 

"Mass redistribution on the Earth’s surface—for example, ice melting and global changes in water storage—yields a relatively weak trend but explains about 90% of the interannual and multidecadal variations. We also find that core processes contribute to both the secular trend and fluctuations in polar motion, either due to variations in torque at the core–mantle boundary or dynamical feedback of the core in response to surface mass changes. Our findings provide constraints on core–mantle interactions for which observations are rare and global ice mass balance over the past century and suggest feedback operating between climate-related surface processes and core dynamics."

Contributions of core, mantle and climatological processes to Earth’s polar motion | Nature Geoscience

"The fluctuations include a quasi-periodic signal with a typical timescale of approximately 30 years, often referred to as the Markowitz wobble[sup]9[/sup]. The driving mechanisms of the secular trend and long-period fluctuations over the entirety of the observational record are not fully understood and are the focus of our study."

"However, other processes can also contribute considerably to the secular trend. These include mantle convection (MC)[sup]15,16,17[/sup] and climate-change-induced land–ocean mass exchanges, in particular the melting of mountain glaciers and polar ice sheets, depletion of the terrestrial water storage (TWS) and associated rise of sea levels[sup]15,18[/sup]. Coseismic and interseismic deformations have also been shown to contribute to a small part of the trend."

---------

Perhaps this Markowitz wobble lasting 30 years may explain what the Inuit elders are witnessing.

---------

"However, the degree to which the core contributes to the observed fluctuations in polar motion is difficult to quantify."

(Maybe that's why some are calling this bunk science?)

There is a lot going on just with Earth's processes alone, now add to that planetary gravitational processes and our sun's dynamics.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image..._HTML.webp]

All those processes are completely natural except for the water displacement by humans and even that has natural historical occurrences. Ice ages have come and gone many times over the history of Earth. 

Did not the water cascading into the Medeterian Sea cause more change than the Three Gourges Dam? The water volume is many times higher.

The inuit part is mearly click bait form fading memories with age. I have already explained how the change supposedly noticed is so small that it can only be measured by scientific equipment and not the naked eye.

What you do not seem to understand is all the changes you have been discussing have always been occuring and there is nothing anyone can do about them. You seem to get worked up when science measures and understands a wonder of nature that was there all along.

[quintessentone]

Funny how you are now discussing the Earth's axis woble and possible displacement but you did not want to discuss that.

That's true because I considered if off topic to Sun stuff, but other members here stepped up after I said that and expressed an interest in maintaining, what they consider to be connected subject matter, as with Earth axis/wobble. So I changed my mind to accommodate the interest of other members and we can also discuss how the Sun's gravitational and magnetic fields etc. effects may indeed be connected.

It may be that adding somewhat off topics to some thread subject matter may benefit this site instead of relying on members to create new threads on singular specific subjects that seem to dwindle into obscurity very quickly.

[quintessentone]

All those processes are completely natural except for the water displacement by humans and even that has natural historical occurrences. Ice ages have come and gone many times over the history of Earth. 

Did not the water cascading into the Medeterian Sea cause more change than the Three Gourges Dam? The water volume is many times higher.

The inuit part is mearly click bait form fading memories with age. I have already explained how the change supposedly noticed is so small that it can only be measured by scientific equipment and not the naked eye.

What you do not seem to understand is all the changes you have been discussing have always been occuring and there is nothing anyone can do about them. You seem to get worked up when science measures and understands a wonder of nature that was there all along.

First of all, if getting worked up means that I find new Sun data from the Parker Probe to be fascinating and interesting, then I'm guilty of being impressed by the new findings. 

I disagree with you about the Inuit elders fading memories when the studies I posted point to the reality of Earth wobble and associated effects. Let's not dismiss something outright without looking at other reasons.

As for the changes always occurring, sure, but now we need to add human activities into that mix and discuss the effects/changes, if any. I happen to not believe that human activities on this planet make no difference, hence my offering how the distribution of groundwater (human activity) has tilted the Earth.

Earth is wobbling and days are getting longer — and humans are to blame | Space

[Maxmars]

I find it immensely satisfying to hear that scientists are admitting, publicly, that we had NO idea about the suns energetic barrier in the exosphere(?) ... 

I often run up against intransigent "knowledge" refusing the privilege of "questioning it"

And as far as solar coronal physics is concerned... we are still scratching the surface,
while media talking heads always portray our scientific understanding beyond question.

Interestingly, it has recently been proposed that even "classic" gravity can "entangle" matter...
given the sun's massive gravity... I think there is an entirely new prospect to explore here.. in
our very own Sun. 

It may have tremendous bearing on EM and other energetic manifestations on the Sun.

[quintessentone]

Plese specify which pole. The magnetic pole or the rotational pole? They both are in the Arctic but are not the same thing. Unfortunately they are both commonly called the North pole.

Maybe both, but I'm just theorizing and would have to dive deeper into how the arctic pole's rotation differs say from the rotation at the equator along with also taking into account human activity regionally or worldwide that may or may not contribute to wobbling. For sure the magnetic north pole is moving constantly and from the limited reading I've done, it was stated that it is now moving faster towards Russia.

AI:

"The Earth's rotational speed varies depending on the latitude. Here are some key points regarding the rotational speeds at different latitudes:

• Equator: The fastest rotational speed at 1,674 kilometers per hour (1,040 miles per hour).
  
• Polar Regions: The rotational speed decreases towards the poles, reaching zero at the North and South Poles.
  
• Latitude 45 Degrees: The rotational speed is approximately 1,180 kilometers per hour (733.5 miles per hour).
  
• Latitude 30 Degrees: The rotational speed is about 1,470 kilometers per hour (914 miles per hour).
  
• Latitude 0 Degrees: The rotational speed is 1,037.5646 miles per hour (1,669.8 kilometers per hour).
  These variations in rotational speed are due to the Earth's shape and mass distribution, which create an equatorial bulge. The rotation also influences weather patterns, ocean currents, and the distribution of solar energy across the planet's surface."
  

----------

"Earth’s rotation period has remained constant over time, though its speed fluctuates due to factors. The axis tilt, known as obliquity, is decreasing at 46.8 seconds of arc per century.  The rotation serves as the basis for 24 time zones and causes the Sun and stars to appear to move from east to west."

Earth Rotation: Definition, Speed, Orbit, Axis - Telescope Nerd

There is a lot going on.

[quintessentone]

It was the Inuit in the settlement of Resolute, in the Nunavut territory of Canada, and it has nothing to do with the rotation rate of the Earth, which hasn't changed significantly.  

Astronomers have known for a long time that when you are on the Earth's surface looking through the atmosphere at some astronomical object (like the Sun) its true geometric elevation relative to the horizon does not correspond exactly to its perceived elevation.  That's because the atmosphere is dense near the surface and fades out into vacuum if you go high enough.  If you are standing on the equator and looking straight up at the Sun, the light rays are coming straight down and taking the shortest possible path through the atmosphere. If you are standing at or near the North Pole the Sun will always be low on the horizon. Under those conditions, the light rays will take a long path through the atmosphere and the change in density of the air along the path creates a change in index of refraction. The change in index of refraction bends the light rays and causes the Sun to appear higher in the sky than it actually is.  In other words, the Sun will appear to the eye to be still above the horizon even after it has moved below the geometric horizontal plane.  The formula that describes the size of this effect has been worked out by astronomers and they correct for it when they have to make precise astrometrical measurements.

At latitudes above about 66 degrees, the Sun will set below the horizon during the Winter and not come back above the horizon until Spring. In the days just before the Sun sets for the Arctic Winter, it appears to simply track around the horizon from left to right. As the season progresses, the Sun will get lower and lower on the horizon and eventually set for the Winter below some landmark on the horizon at some azimuth angle.  

The atmosphere has been warming, and that changes the index of refraction of the air by a small amount.  In fact, the atmosphere has been warming faster in the Arctic than just about anywhere else on the planet.  That changes where the apparent elevation of the Sun is compared to its true geometric elevation by a little bit, and that changes the azimuth angle where the Sun will appear to go below the horizon for the Winter.  The physical geometry of the situation hasn't changed at all, it's just the angle by which the Sun's rays have bent that has changed.

Bravo and thanks for contributing with highly likely explanations as to why the Inuit claim the sun sits higher in the sky now and didn't before.

Okay, I'll be adding sun stuff here and there going forward.