While this picture may look like a bunch of stars, but it comes close to a time machine. The picture taken by the Hubble Space Telescope has reached back 13.2 billion years to reveal baby galaxies after the Big Bang.
This is the picture of space just 600 million to 800 million years after the Big Bang.
The existence of these newly found galaxies pushes back the time when galaxies.
They are the product of Hubble’s new infrared Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3), installed in May.
The James Webb Space Telescope is planned for launch in 2014 and allow astronomers to study the detailed nature of early galaxies and go even further back in time.
For the full story, click here.
How about this, badtroll.
You go out and watch the sun for us to make sure it doesn’t act up.
The overall quality of your comments indicate that staring at the sun is a family tradition for you. Understanding what you see? Not so much.
Ohhh, the Titanic. Shouting it always makes you right, bdasilly.
That’s just absurd. Which is about par for your course.
Nothing you’ve said contradicts what I’ve said and indeed supports my valid assertions despite your feeble attempts at spin.
You keep flailing though. It’s kind cute in that dancing monkey propaganda monkey way of yours.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
There’s so much that is unknown to us (to state the obvious) — we need to keep pushing the limits.
I think I’ll read “The Little Prince” tonight…
That inferiority complex is showing again, bdainsecure.
So again, don’t hate me because I’m smarter than you. Hate me because I’m the enemy of your fascist puppet masters.
Variability in the amount of energy from the sun has caused climate changes in the past. It is now accepted that the global cooling during Ice Ages is the result of changes in the distribution and amount of sunlight that reaches Earth. During the last Ice Age, the globally averaged temperature of Earth was about 6°C colder than it is today. While this may not sound like much, the effect was to cover large parts of Canada, Alaska, and Siberia with huge sheets of ice up to a mile thick.
Even the climate changes of the 20th century may have a significant solar component. Figure 3 shows comparisons of globally averaged temperature and solar activity. Many scientists find that these correlations are convincing evidence that the sun has contributed to the global warming of the 20th century. Some say that as much as 1/3 of the global warming may be the result of an increase in solar energy. So, while it is becoming clear that human activity is changing the climate today, solar activity may also be contributing to climate change and probably changed the climate in the past.
In order to accurately predict how future human activities will change the climate, it is critical to understand the variability of the natural system. Therefore, even though solar activity may not be the dominant factor in global warming, it is important enough that understanding how the climate responds to small changes in solar irradiance will help scientists predict the climate changes caused by human activity.
The NOAA Space Environment Center (SEC) combines scientific research and an operational Space Weather Center to maintain a vigilant watch on solar activity. SEC’s primary mission is studying the affects of a variable sun on the upper atmosphere and the near-Earth space environment. Monitoring and understanding the solar effects on the middle and lower atmosphere is a new component of SEC’s mission. Present NOAA/SEC activities include monitoring the sun in x-ray and ultraviolet wavelengths as well as sunspots. NOAA recognizes the need for new efforts in this area and will include solar extreme ultraviolet measurements on the next generation of GOES spacecraft and total solar irradiance and solar spectral irradiance measurements as part of its upcoming NPOESS spacecraft mission.
DID SUNSPOTS SINK THE TITANIC?
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
bdatroll,
Thanks for pointing out that the solar weather impacts net energy received. Just as I said.
See, here’s where you go wrong.
Sunspots may indeed push us over a critical threshold – but only if we’ve monkeyed with the atmosphere enough to allow that extra heat to be retained. It’s called a “tipping point”. If you understood complex system, which you don’t despite numerous discussion on the topic here between the scientifically literate and our resident professional scientist, you’d know what a tipping point is and how a natural variation in weather can become one given the right circumstance.
The perfect example is how geologists, paleoclimatlogists and paleontologists now describe as the mode in which dinosaurs went extinct. Natural weather variations had already stressed dinosaur populations by changing the sea level with directly impacted the plants at the base of the food web. Chixalub wasn’t the only dinosaur killer. It was three guns that wiped them out. Already stressed by natural weather variations, when the first asteroid stuck, it stressed populations even further. When the second hit? Tipping point. Large fauna no longer had a sustainable base in the ecosystem.
Global warming is still an atmospheric chemistry problem no matter how much you want to make it an astronomical problem. Putting the atmosphere is a state of instability to where a tipping point is possible is the issue.
If you watch The Cloud Mystery by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark you would understand this.
You can’t be a know it all if you don’t know it all. You can’t be an expert in a field unless you master that field and even then you still could be wrong no matter the mastery of that field. Sometimes people are too smart for their own good.
Elaine,
I’m laughing so hard I may have to start watching Keith again!
Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001). Since pre-industrial times, it’s thought that the Sun has given rise to a global heating similar to that caused by the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the past is any indication of things to come, solar cycles may play a role in future global warming.
Sunspot cycles may sway global warming either way. If long-term cycles in solar radiation reverse course and the Sun’s spots and faculae begin to disappear over the next century, then the Sun could partially counter global warming. On the other hand, if the average number of spots rises, the Sun could serve to warm our planet even more. As to the shorter-term 11-year cycles, they may dampen or amplify the affects of global warming on a year-to-year basis.
The Sun’s affect on global warming can mostly be attributed to variations in the near-infrared and visible wavelengths of solar radiation. As previously stated, these types of radiation are absorbed by the lower atmosphere, the oceans, and the land. UV radiation, on the other hand, interacts strongly with the ozone layer and the upper atmosphere. Though UV solar radiation makes up a much smaller portion of the TSI than infrared or visible radiation, UV solar radiation tends to change much more dramatically over the course of solar cycles.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_04.php
Whose counting Elaine M.? What has fact to do with fiction? Fox News proves that Nightly. I am afraid that Rush’s temporary praise of the HI hospital system might really be fiction and that was not all of what he meant.
Sunspots can cause blindness too.
Such heresy! Can’t be true. I think you got some numbers wrong here. It’s a fact that the Earth and the universe are just a mere 6,000 years old, doncha know!!!
Just ask Sylvia Allen, a state senator from Arizona.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6msA6Fk48&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Yes I can.
Sunspots are a distraction tactic of trolls in the global warming argument in addition to being cool spots that inhibit convection and create intense magnetic fields that cause such features as coronal loops.
Sunspots aren’t relevant to global warming issues but are part of the natural weather cycle. They can and do create variations in weather just like flares do. Sunspots will do what they will do and they cause variations, but those variations are not the point: the heat retention characteristics of the atmosphere are the issue. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are driving up the amount of heat the atmosphere is capable of retaining, not sunspots. Once the heat retention threshold gets high enough, little or no heat radiates back out into space and Earth becomes a lot like Venus. An inhospitable Hell.
Global warming is an atmospheric chemistry issue. Period. And sunspots affect net energy received, not atmospheric chemistry. What affects atmospheric chemistry is, duh, the manufactured chemical compounds we as humans inject into the atmosphere.
Cause and effect.
Any more stupid questions, bdascientificallyignorant? Rhetorical. You are an unending pit of stupid questions and statements.
Could you tell us about the effects of sunspots, Mr Sunspot.
FFLEO,
I am so happy to hear you are an early adopter of solar. The sun is, after all, where all “local” energy comes from – be it the materials of the Earth itself or flora upon which we fauna feed. Thank you for pointing out that important technology.
Buddha,
Another innovation from space exploration has been the development of solar panels/solar power. I have lived in a solar powered home since the early 1980s and without NASA et al, such technologies would not have advanced.
So where do we get off? Buddha, I am not saying anything to you….about this… But wow.
I seem to have gotten a chastisement. Oh well. Not the first not the last…
The Ultimate Wayback Machine…
What a boon to cosmology. The closer we get to the big bang in observation, the more complete our knowledge. There will eventually be a bar to observation of the past, but it’s nice to know that bar has been moved much further back toward the beginning of time.
Despite all the critics, NASA provides invaluable scientific insight into the universe in which we live. That they are a low man/whipping boy on the funding totem is also a tribute to the myopia and shortsightedness of our “leaders” in Washington. And a shame. “It’s wasteful spending!” No, it’s not. It leads to both pure science knowledge and practical engineering solutions that directly benefit Earth-bound society. The least of which is Tang, the most of which are (probably at this point in time) hydrogen fuel cell technology. If waste is the issue, let’s talk about unnecessary wars started for oil profits. NASA’s budget is a drop in the bucket compared to what we’ve pissed away in Iraq and are about to piss away in Afghanistan.
Urge your representatives to fund NASA. After all, “the sky calls to us. If we don’t destroy ourselves we will one day venture to the stars.” And we should know as much about our destination as possible.